Search

The age of the patient is of prime importance when assessing the radiological risk to patients due to medical X-ray exposures and the total detriment to the population due to radiodiagnostics. In order to take into account the age-specific radiosensitivity, three age groups are considered: children, adults and the elderly. In this work, the relative number of examinations carried out on paediatric and geriatric patients is established, compared with adult patients, for radiodiagnostics as a whole, for dental and medical radiology, for 8 radiological modalities as well as for 40 types of X-ray examinations. The relative numbers of X-ray examinations are determined based on the corresponding age distributions of patients and that of the general population. Two broad groups of X-ray examinations may be defined. Group A comprises conventional radiography, fluoroscopy and computed tomography; for this group a paediatric patient undergoes half the number of examinations as that of an adult, and a geriatric patient undergoes 2.5 times more. Group B comprises angiography and interventional procedures; for this group a paediatric patient undergoes a one-fourth of the number of examinations carried out on an adult, and a geriatric patient undergoes five times more

Objective To examine the appropriateness and necessity of colonoscopy across Europe. Design Prospective observational study. Setting A total of 21 gastrointestinal centers from 11 countries. Participants Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy at each center. Intervention Appropriateness criteria developed by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, using the RAND appropriateness method, were used to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopy. Main outcome measure Appropriateness of colonoscopy. Results A total of 5213 of 6004 (86.8%) patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy and had an appropriateness rating were included in this study. According to the criteria, 20, 26, 27, or 27% of colonoscopies were judged to be necessary, appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, respectively. Older patients and those with a major illness were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication for colonoscopy as compared to healthy patients or patients who were 45-54 years old. As compared to screening patients, patients who underwent colonoscopy for iron-deficiency anemia [OR: 30.84, 95% CI: 19.79-48.06] or change in bowel habits [OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 2.74-4.96] were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication, whereas patients who underwent colonoscopy for abdominal pain [OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83] or chronic diarrhea [OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.40-0.75] were less likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication. Conclusions This study identified significant proportions of inappropriate colonoscopies. Prospective use of the criteria by physicians referring for or performing colonoscopies may improve appropriateness and quality of care, especially in younger patients and in patients with nonspecific symptoms

Quality of medical assessment of work incapacity has been poorly investigated, despite the enormous costs engendered by transient incapacity of work and permanent disability. This study examined some indices of quality from a stratified, random sample (n=120) of assessments performed by expert assessors of the Swiss disability insurance. The distribution of work incapacity (WI) percentages over a 100% scale showed a clustering around key values significantly associated with financial disability benefits. The precision of WI, expressed as the level of quantitative exactness, was found to be high in 74% (95% CI: 66-82%) of current WI assessments, and in 62% (95% Cl: 53-71%) of maximal WI assessments. Disagreement was observed in 17% of cases when comparing two ways of expressing WI by the same physician (95% CI: 10-23%). This exploratory study is limited by the general lack of objective criteria and standards. Further theoretical and expirical developments are needed to determine standardized criteria and clear guidelines for medical assessments of WI, as well as for evaluating their quality. Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for the investigation of iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) and hematochezia, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Review, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Udgivelsesdato: 2009-Mar, BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic individuals without personal history of CRC or polyps, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy in these circumstances. RESULTS: Available evidence for CRC screening comes from small case-controlled studies, with heterogeneous results, and from indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening and studies on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Most guidelines recommend screening colonoscopy every 10 years starting at age 50 in average-risk individuals. In individuals with a higher risk of CRC due to family history, there is a consensus that it is appropriate to offer screening colonoscopy at < 50 years. EPAGE II considered screening colonoscopy appropriate above 50 years in average-risk individuals. Panelists deemed screening colonoscopy appropriate for younger patients, with shorter surveillance intervals, where family or personal risk of colorectal cancer is higher. A positive FOBT or the discovery of adenomas at sigmoidoscopy are considered appropriate indications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of evidence based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), colonoscopy is recommended by most published guidelines and EPAGE II criteria available online (http://www.epage.ch), as a screening option for CRC in individuals at average risk of CRC, and undisputedly as the main screening tool for CRC in individuals at moderate and high risk of CRC.