Effect of clinical information and previous exam execution on observer agreement and reliability in the analysis of hysteroscopic video-recordings.

INTRODUCTION: Inter-observer agreement and reliability in hysteroscopic image assessment remain uncertain and the type of factors that may influence it has only been studied in relation to the experience of hysteroscopists. We aim to assess the effect of clinical information and previous exam execution on observer agreement and reliability in the analysis of hysteroscopic video-recordings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety hysteroscopies were video-recorded and randomized into a group without (Group 1) and with clinical information (Group 2). The videos were independently analyzed by three hysteroscopists, regarding lesion location, dimension, and type, as well as decision to perform a biopsy. One of the hysteroscopists had executed all the exams before. Proportions of agreement (PA) and kappa statistics (κ) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used. RESULTS: In Group 2, there was a higher proportion of a normal diagnosis (p < 0.001) and a lower proportion of biopsies recommended (p = 0.027). Observer agreement and reliability were better in Group 2, with the PA and κ ranging, respectively, from 0.73 (95% CI 0.62, 0.83) and 0.44 (95% CI 0.26, 0.63), for image quality, to 0.94 (95% CI 0.88, 0.99) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.65, 0.95), for the decision to perform a biopsy. Execution of the exams before the analysis of the video-recordings did not significantly affect the results. CONCLUSION: With clinical information, agreement and reliability in the overall analysis of hysteroscopic video-recordings may reach almost perfect results and this was not significantly affected by the execution of the exams before the analysis. However, there is still uncertainty in the analysis of specific endometrial cavity abnormalities.

The effect of a test ordering software intervention on the prescription of unnecessary laboratory tests - a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The way software for electronic health records and laboratory tests ordering systems are designed may influence physicians' prescription. A randomised controlled trial was performed to measure the impact of a diagnostic and laboratory tests ordering system software modification. METHODS: Participants were family physicians working and prescribing diagnostic and laboratory tests. The intervention group had a modified software with a basic shortcut menu changes, where some tests were withdrawn or added, and with the implementation of an evidence-based decision support based on United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. This intervention group was compared with usual software (control group). The outcomes were the number of tests prescribed from those: withdrawn from the basic menu; added to the basic menu; marked with green dots (USPSTF's grade A and B); and marked with red dots (USPSTF's grade D). RESULTS: Comparing the monthly average number of tests prescribed before and after the software modification, from those tests that were withdrawn from the basic menu, the control group prescribed 33.8 tests per 100 consultations before and 30.8 after (p = 0075); the intervention group prescribed 31.3 before and 13.9 after (p < 0001). Comparing the tests prescribed between both groups during the intervention, from those tests that were withdrawn from the basic menu, the intervention group prescribed a monthly average of 14.0 vs. 29.3 tests per 100 consultations in the control group (p < 0.001). From those tests that are USPSTF's grade A and B, intervention group prescribed 66.8 vs. 74.1 tests per 100 consultations in the control group (p = 0.070). From those tests categorised as USPSTF grade D, the intervention group prescribed an average of 9.8 vs. 11.8 tests per 100 consultations in the control group (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Removing unnecessary tests from a quick shortcut menu of the diagnosis and laboratory tests ordering system had a significant impact and reduced unnecessary prescription of tests. The fact that it was not possible to perform the randomization at the family physicians' level, but only of the computer servers is a limitation of our study. Future research should assess the impact of different tests ordering systems during longer periods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45427977 , May 1st 2014 (retrospectively registered).