IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v21y2001i6p490-497.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Appropriateness Ratings for Cataract Surgery between Convened and Mail-only Multidisciplinary Panels

Author

Listed:
  • Joanne K. Tobacman

    (College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City)

  • Ingrid U. Scott

    (Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida)

  • Stacey T. Cyphert

    (Statewide Health Services, University of Iowa, Iowa City)

  • M. Bridget Zimmerman

    (Biostatistical Consulting Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City)

Abstract

Background . In this article, the authors determine the reproducibility of appropriateness ratings for cataract surgery between a multidisciplinary physician panel that convened and a multidisciplinary physician panel that completed ratings by mail. Methods . Eighteen panelists, who constituted 2 distinct multidisciplinary panels, rated 2894 clinical scenarios as an appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain indication to perform cataract surgery. Each panel’s summary score for each scenario was calculated. Weighted kappa values were determined to assess the level of agreement between the ratings of the 2 panels. Results . The panels had a substantial level of agreement overall, with a weighted kappa statistic of 0.64. There was agreement on about 68% of the scenarios, and serious disagreement, in which one panel rated an indication appropriate and the other rated it inappropriate, occurred in only 1% of the ratings. Conclusion . There was substantial agreement about the ratings by the 2 panels. The panel that convened rated fewer scenarios uncertain and more appropriate, suggesting the impact of group dynamics and face-to-face discussion on resolution of uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanne K. Tobacman & Ingrid U. Scott & Stacey T. Cyphert & M. Bridget Zimmerman, 2001. "Comparison of Appropriateness Ratings for Cataract Surgery between Convened and Mail-only Multidisciplinary Panels," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(6), pages 490-497, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:6:p:490-497
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0102100607
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0102100607?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joanne K. Tobacman & Bridget Zimmerman & Paul Lee & Lee Hilborne & Hansjoerg Kolder & Robert H. Brook, 2003. "Visual Acuity following Cataract Surgeries in Relation to Preoperative Appropriateness Ratings," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 122-130, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:6:p:490-497. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.