Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Lopes,J.R.
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Oliveira,A.C., Rios,V.G., Correia,L.C.L.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2018000800606
Resumo: Complementary examinations are “inadequate” whenever the likelihood of benefits from their indication is lower than the negative results. The low benefit is a result of poor performance in detecting relevant changes that lead to improved behavior. However, inadequate examinations are prevalent and little is known about patients' notions of the usefulness of such indications. The aim of this study was to describe relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and to assess the level of agreement between patients and cardiologists regarding their usefulness. Adults without known cardiovascular disease who were referred for echocardiogram by inappropriate criteria according to the American College of Cardiology were selected. Relevant findings were defined by any change in the degree of moderate to severe, according to the American Society of Echocardiography. We tested the level of agreement between the patients who underwent echocardiographic examination and the physicians who requested the exam through a standard questionnaire. Five hundred patients were included, with average age of 52±17 years (47% males). Only 17 patients had any relevant changes (3.4%, 95%CI=2 to 5.4%). The most frequent alterations included valve changes in 8 and diastolic dysfunction grade II in 6 patients. Eighty-seven examinations were performed to determine the level of agreement between patients and cardiologists. For the question “Is this test really necessary?”, 92% of patients responded positively, compared with 5% of cardiologists (Kappa negative 0.04; P=0.01). The frequency of relevant findings was low in inadequate echocardiograms and patients and cardiologists had a different perception regarding its usefulness.
id ABDC-1_ba801154613e27f6d63e7d628fcc431c
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-879X2018000800606
network_acronym_str ABDC-1
network_name_str Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
repository_id_str
spelling Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patientsEchocardiogramInappropriateUtilityPatientsCardiologistsComplementary examinations are “inadequate” whenever the likelihood of benefits from their indication is lower than the negative results. The low benefit is a result of poor performance in detecting relevant changes that lead to improved behavior. However, inadequate examinations are prevalent and little is known about patients' notions of the usefulness of such indications. The aim of this study was to describe relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and to assess the level of agreement between patients and cardiologists regarding their usefulness. Adults without known cardiovascular disease who were referred for echocardiogram by inappropriate criteria according to the American College of Cardiology were selected. Relevant findings were defined by any change in the degree of moderate to severe, according to the American Society of Echocardiography. We tested the level of agreement between the patients who underwent echocardiographic examination and the physicians who requested the exam through a standard questionnaire. Five hundred patients were included, with average age of 52±17 years (47% males). Only 17 patients had any relevant changes (3.4%, 95%CI=2 to 5.4%). The most frequent alterations included valve changes in 8 and diastolic dysfunction grade II in 6 patients. Eighty-seven examinations were performed to determine the level of agreement between patients and cardiologists. For the question “Is this test really necessary?”, 92% of patients responded positively, compared with 5% of cardiologists (Kappa negative 0.04; P=0.01). The frequency of relevant findings was low in inadequate echocardiograms and patients and cardiologists had a different perception regarding its usefulness.Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica2018-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2018000800606Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research v.51 n.8 2018reponame:Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Researchinstname:Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)instacron:ABDC10.1590/1414-431x20187413info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLopes,J.R.Oliveira,A.C.Rios,V.G.Correia,L.C.L.eng2019-03-19T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-879X2018000800606Revistahttps://www.bjournal.org/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbjournal@terra.com.br||bjournal@terra.com.br1414-431X0100-879Xopendoar:2019-03-19T00:00Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research - Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients
title Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients
spellingShingle Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients
Lopes,J.R.
Echocardiogram
Inappropriate
Utility
Patients
Cardiologists
title_short Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients
title_full Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients
title_fullStr Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients
title_full_unstemmed Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients
title_sort Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients
author Lopes,J.R.
author_facet Lopes,J.R.
Oliveira,A.C.
Rios,V.G.
Correia,L.C.L.
author_role author
author2 Oliveira,A.C.
Rios,V.G.
Correia,L.C.L.
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Lopes,J.R.
Oliveira,A.C.
Rios,V.G.
Correia,L.C.L.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Echocardiogram
Inappropriate
Utility
Patients
Cardiologists
topic Echocardiogram
Inappropriate
Utility
Patients
Cardiologists
description Complementary examinations are “inadequate” whenever the likelihood of benefits from their indication is lower than the negative results. The low benefit is a result of poor performance in detecting relevant changes that lead to improved behavior. However, inadequate examinations are prevalent and little is known about patients' notions of the usefulness of such indications. The aim of this study was to describe relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and to assess the level of agreement between patients and cardiologists regarding their usefulness. Adults without known cardiovascular disease who were referred for echocardiogram by inappropriate criteria according to the American College of Cardiology were selected. Relevant findings were defined by any change in the degree of moderate to severe, according to the American Society of Echocardiography. We tested the level of agreement between the patients who underwent echocardiographic examination and the physicians who requested the exam through a standard questionnaire. Five hundred patients were included, with average age of 52±17 years (47% males). Only 17 patients had any relevant changes (3.4%, 95%CI=2 to 5.4%). The most frequent alterations included valve changes in 8 and diastolic dysfunction grade II in 6 patients. Eighty-seven examinations were performed to determine the level of agreement between patients and cardiologists. For the question “Is this test really necessary?”, 92% of patients responded positively, compared with 5% of cardiologists (Kappa negative 0.04; P=0.01). The frequency of relevant findings was low in inadequate echocardiograms and patients and cardiologists had a different perception regarding its usefulness.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2018000800606
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2018000800606
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1414-431x20187413
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research v.51 n.8 2018
reponame:Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
instname:Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
instacron:ABDC
instname_str Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
instacron_str ABDC
institution ABDC
reponame_str Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
collection Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research - Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bjournal@terra.com.br||bjournal@terra.com.br
_version_ 1754302946633318400