Appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening: appraisal of evidence by experts

Details

Ressource 1Download: serval:BIB_887FC68E8E60.P001 (99.32 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: author
License: Not specified
It was possible to publish this article open access thanks to a Swiss National Licence with the publisher.
Serval ID
serval:BIB_887FC68E8E60
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening: appraisal of evidence by experts
Journal
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Author(s)
Peytremann Bridevaux  Isabelle, Silaghi  Anne-Melody, Vader  John-Paul, Froehlich  Florian, Gonvers  Jean-Jacques, Burnand  Bernard
ISSN
1353-4505
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2006
Volume
18
Number
3
Pages
177-82
Notes
SAPHIRID:57839
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: . To evaluate how the level of evidence perceived by an international panel of experts was concordant with the level of evidence found in the literature, to compare experts perceived level of evidence to their appropriateness scores, and to compare appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy between experts and an evidence-based approach. DESIGN: /B>. Comparison of expert panel opinions and systematic literature review regarding the level of evidence and appropriateness of colonoscopy indications. PARTICIPANTS: /B>. European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy multidisciplinary experts from 14 European countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: /B>. Concordance and weighted kappa coefficient between level of evidence as perceived by the experts' and that found in the literature, and between panel- and literature-based appropriateness categories. RESULTS: /B>. Experts overestimated the level of published evidence of 57 indications. Concordance between the level of evidence perceived by the experts and the actual level of evidence found in the literature was 36% (weighted kappa 0.18). Indications for colonoscopy were reported to be appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate by the experts in 54, 19, and 27% of the cases, and by the literature in 37, 46, and 17% of the cases. A 46% agreement (weighted kappa 0.29) was found between literature-based and experts' appropriateness criteria. CONCLUSIONS: /B>. Experts often overestimated the level of evidence on which they based their decisions. However, rarely did the experts' judgement completely disagree with the literature, although concordance between panel- and literature-based appropriateness was only fair. A more explicit discussion of existing evidence should be undertaken with the experts before they evaluate appropriateness criteria. [Authors]
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
04/03/2008 15:58
Last modification date
25/09/2019 7:09
Usage data