The financial implications of investigating false-positive and true-positive mammograms in a national breast cancer screening program.

Objectives To determine the total annual screening and further-investigation costs of investigating false-positive and true-positive mammograms in the Australian population breast-screening program. Methods This economic analysis used aggregate-level retrospective cohort data of women screened at a breast-screening clinic. Counts and frequencies of each diagnostic workup-sequence recorded were scaled up to national figures and costed by estimating per-patient costs of procedures using screening clinic cost data. Main outcomes and measures estimated were percentage share of total annual screening and further-investigation costs for the Australian population breast-screening program of investigating false-positive and true-positive mammograms. Secondary outcomes determined were average costs of investigating each false-positive and true-positive mammogram. Sensitivity analyses involved recalculating results excluding subgroups of patients below and above the screening age range of 50-74 years. Results Of 8235 patients, the median age was 60.35 years with interquartile range of 54.17-67.17 years. A total of 15.4% (ranging from 13.4 to 15.4% under different scenarios) of total annual screening and further-investigation costs were from investigating false-positive mammograms. This exceeded the share of costs from investigating true-positives (13%). Conclusions We have developed a transparent and non-onerous approach for estimating the costs of false-positive and true-positive mammograms associated with the national breast-screening program. While determining an optimal balance between false-positives and true-positive rates must rely primarily on health outcomes, costs are an important consideration. We recommend that future research adopts and refines similar approaches to facilitate better monitoring of these costs, benchmark against estimates from other screening programs, and support optimal policy development.

Overcoming Overuse Part 4: Small Business Survival.

SUMMARY: The challenge of overuse raises important questions for those in the business of musculoskeletal health care. What is the right number of physical therapy visits for a given condition? Can a practice provide "less" but still be profitable? In this, the editorial on overcoming overuse of musculoskeletal health care, we consider the economic drivers of overuse in the private sector. We propose actions that could support small business leaders to overcome overuse and build profitable, high-quality services. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(1):1-4. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0101.

The Difference between Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measurements of Tibial Tubercle-Trochlear Groove Distance for Patients with or without Patellofemoral Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

The tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance was originally described for computed tomography (CT) but has recently been used on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without sufficient evidence demonstrating its validity on MRI. The current review aims to evaluate (1) whether there is a difference in the TT-TG distances measured using CT and MRI, (2) whether both the TT-TG distances measured using CT and MRI could be used to differentiate between patients with or without patellofemoral instability, and (3) whether the same threshold of 15 to 20 mm can be applied for both TT-TG distances measured using CT and MRI. The review was conducted using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRSIMA) guidelines. All studies that compared TT-TG distances either (1) between CT and MRI or (2) between patients with and without patellofemoral instability were included. A total of 23 publications were included in the review. These included a total of 3,040 patients. All publications reported the TT-TG distance to be greater in patients with patellofemoral instability as compared to those without patellofemoral instability. This difference was noted for both TT-TG distances measured on CT and on MRI. All publications also reported the TT-TG distance measured on CT to be greater than that measured on MRI (mean difference [MD] = 1.79 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-2.68). Pooling of the studies revealed that the mean TT-TG distance for the control group was 12.85 mm (95% CI: 11.71-14.01) while the mean TT-TG distance for patients with patellofemoral instability was 18.33 mm (95% CI: 17.04-19.62) when measured on CT. When measured on MRI, the mean TT-TG distance for the control group was 9.83 mm (95% CI: 9.11-10.54), while the mean TT-TG distance for patients with patellofemoral instability was 15.33 mm (95% CI: 14.24-16.42). Both the TTTG distances measured on CT and MRI could be used to differentiate between patients with and without patellofemoral instability. Patients with patellofemoral instability had significantly greater TT-TG distances than those without. However, the TT-TG distances measured on CT were significantly greater than that measured on MRI. Different cut-off values should, therefore, be used for TT-TG distances measured on CT and on MRI in the determination of normal versus abnormal values. Pooling of all the patients included in the review then suggest for 15.5 ± 1.5 mm to be used as the cut off for TT-TG distance measured on CT, and for 12.5 ± 2 mm to be used as the cut-off for TT-TG distance measured on MRI. The Level of evidence for this study is IV.

The Difference between Cartilaginous and Bony Sulcus Angles for Patients with or without Patellofemoral Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The cartilaginous sulcus angle and bony sulcus angle have been widely used to evaluate trochlea dysplasia. The current review aims to evaluate (1) whether there is a difference in measurement for cartilaginous and bony sulcus angles, (2) whether both the cartilaginous and bony sulcus angles could be used to differentiate between patients with or without trochlear dysplasia, and (3) whether the same cut-off of 145 degrees, originally used for radiographs, can be applied for the cartilaginous and bony sulcus angles measured on CT and MRI. The review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRSIMA) guidelines. A total of 11 publications with 1204 patients were included. All publications reported the sulcus angle to be greater in patients with patellofemoral instability. All publications reported the cartilaginous sulcus angle to be greater than the bony sulcus angle (MD 7.27 degrees; 95% CI: 5.67 - 8.87). The mean cartilaginous sulcus angle for the control group was 141.83 degrees (95% CI: 139.90 - 143.76) while the mean cartilaginous sulcus angle for patients with patellofemoral instability was 156.24 degrees (95% CI: 153.71 - 158.77). The mean bony sulcus angle for the control group was noted to be 133.69 degrees (95% CI: 131.23 - 136.15) while the mean bony sulcus angle for patients with patellofemoral instability was 148.42 (95% CI: 144.02 - 152.82). Both the cartilaginous and bony sulcus angles measured on CT and MRI could therefore be used to differentiate between patients with and without trochlear dysplasia. However, the cartilaginous sulcus angles are significantly higher than that of bony sulcus angles. Different cut off values should therefore be used.

Can nudge-interventions address health service overuse and underuse? Protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Nudge-interventions aimed at health professionals are proposed to reduce the overuse and underuse of health services. However, little is known about their effectiveness at changing health professionals' behaviours in relation to overuse or underuse of tests or treatments. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to systematically identify and synthesise the studies that have assessed the effect of nudge-interventions aimed at health professionals on the overuse or underuse of health services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review. All study designs that include a control comparison will be included. Any qualified health professional, across any specialty or setting, will be included. Only nudge-interventions aimed at altering the behaviour of health professionals will be included. We will examine the effect of choice architecture nudges (default options, active choice, framing effects, order effects) and social nudges (accountable justification and pre-commitment or publicly declared pledge/contract). Studies with outcomes relevant to overuse or underuse of health services will be included. Relevant studies will be identified by a computer-aided search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases. Two independent reviewers will screen studies for eligibility, extract data and perform the risk of bias assessment using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. We will report our results in a structured synthesis format, as recommended by the Cochrane EPOC group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this study. Results will be presented at relevant scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed literature.

Effect of two behavioural 'nudging' interventions on management decisions for low back pain: a randomised vignette-based study in general practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: 'Nudges' are subtle cognitive cues thought to influence behaviour. We investigated whether embedding nudges in a general practitioner (GP) clinical decision support display can reduce low-value management decisions . METHODS: Australian GPs completed four clinical vignettes of patients with low back pain. Participants chose from three guideline-concordant and three guideline-discordant (low-value) management options for each vignette, on a computer screen. A 2×2 factorial design randomised participants to two possible nudge interventions: 'partition display' nudge (low-value options presented horizontally, high-value options listed vertically) or 'default option' nudge (high-value options presented as the default, low-value options presented only after clicking for more). The primary outcome was the proportion of scenarios where practitioners chose at least one of the low-value care options. RESULTS: 120 GPs (72% male, 28% female) completed the trial (n=480 vignettes). Participants using a conventional menu display without nudges chose at least one low-value care option in 42% of scenarios. Participants exposed to the default option nudge were 44% less likely to choose at least one low-value care option (OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.37 to 0.85; p=0.006) compared with those not exposed. The partition display nudge had no effect on choice of low-value care (OR 1.08, 95%CI 0.72 to 1.64; p=0.7). There was no interaction between the nudges (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; p=0.89). INTERPRETATION: A default option nudge reduced the odds of choosing low-value options for low back pain in clinical vignettes. Embedding high value options as defaults in clinical decision support tools could improve quality of care. More research is needed into how nudges impact clinical decision-making in different contexts.

Reducing Unnecessary Imaging and Pathology Tests: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Unnecessary imaging and pathology procedures represent low-value care and can harm children and the health care system. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of interventions designed to reduce unnecessary pediatric imaging and pathology testing. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: Studies we included were: reports of interventions to reduce unnecessary imaging and pathology testing in pediatric populations; from developed countries; written in the English language; and published between January 1, 1996, and April 29, 2017. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using a Cochrane group risk of bias tool. Level of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine grading system. RESULTS: We found 64 articles including 44 before-after, 14 interrupted time series, and 1 randomized controlled trial. More effective interventions were (1) multifaceted, with 3 components (mean relative reduction = 45.0%; SD = 28.3%) as opposed to 2 components (32.0% [30.3%]); or 1 component (28.6%, [34.9%]); (2) targeted toward families and clinicians compared with clinicians only (61.9% [34.3%] vs 30.0% [32.0%], respectively); and (3) targeted toward imaging (41.8% [38.4%]) or pathology testing only (48.8% [20.9%]), compared with both simultaneously (21.6% [29.2%]). LIMITATIONS: The studies we included were limited to the English language. CONCLUSIONS: Promising interventions include audit and feedback, system-based changes, and education. Future researchers should move beyond before-after designs to rigorously evaluate interventions. A relatively novel approach will be to include both clinicians and the families they manage in such interventions.

EVOLVE: The Australian Rheumatology Association's 'top five' list of investigations and interventions doctors and patients should question.

BACKGROUND: The EVOLVE (evaluating evidence, enhancing efficiencies) initiative aims to drive safer, higher-quality patient care through identifying and reducing low-value practices. AIMS: To determine the Australian Rheumatology Association's (ARA) 'top five' list of low-value practices. METHODS: A working group comprising 19 rheumatologists and three trainees compiled a preliminary list. Items were retained if there was strong evidence of low value and there was high or increasing clinical use and/or increasing cost. All ARA members (356 rheumatologists and 72 trainees) were invited to indicate their 'top five' list from a list of 12-items through SurveyMonkey in December 2015 (reminder February 2016). RESULTS: A total of 179 rheumatologists (50.3%) and 19 trainees (26.4%) responded. The top five list (percentage of rheumatologists, including item in their top five list) was: Do not perform arthroscopy with lavage and/or debridement for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee nor partial meniscectomy for a degenerate meniscal tear (73.2%); Do not order anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) testing without symptoms and/or signs suggestive of a systemic rheumatic disease (56.4%); Do not undertake imaging for low back pain for patients without indications of an underlying serious condition (50.8%); Do not use ultrasound guidance to perform injections into the subacromial space as it provides no additional benefit in comparison to landmark-guided injection (50.3%) and Do not order anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies in ANA negative patients unless the clinical suspicion of systemic lupus erythematosus remains high (45.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This list is intended to increase awareness among rheumatologists, other clinicians and patients about commonly used low-value practices that should be questioned.

Countering cognitive biases in minimising low value care.

Cognitive biases in decision making may make it difficult for clinicians to reconcile evidence of overuse with highly ingrained prior beliefs and intuition. Such biases can predispose clinicians towards low value care and may limit the impact of recently launched campaigns aimed at reducing such care. Commonly encountered biases comprise commission bias, illusion of control, impact bias, availability bias, ambiguity bias, extrapolation bias, endowment effects, sunken cost bias and groupthink. Various strategies may be used to counter such biases, including cognitive huddles, narratives of patient harm, value considerations in clinical assessments, defining acceptable levels of risk of adverse outcomes, substitution, reflective practice and role modelling, normalisation of deviance, nudge techniques and shared decision making. These debiasing strategies have considerable face validity and, for some, effectiveness in reducing low value care has been shown in randomised trials.