Choosing Wisely in Daily Practice: An Intervention Study on Antinuclear Antibody Testing by Rheumatologists

Arthritis Care and Research

Volumn 68, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 562-569

  Lesuis, Nienke ^a   Hulscher, Marlies E J L ^b   Piek, Ester ^a   Demirel, Hatice ^a   Van Der Laan Baalbergen, Nicole ^c   Meek, Inger ^b   Van Vollenhoven, Ronald F ^d   Den Broeder, Alfons A ^a  

^a SINT MAARTENSKLINIEK   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c Sint Maartenskliniek Woerden   (Netherlands)

^d KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINUCLEAR ANTIBODY; BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ADULT; ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ANTINUCLEAR ANTIBODY NEW PATIENT RATIO; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMMUNOASSAY; INTERVENTION STUDY; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MALE; NETHERLANDS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REPEAT PROCEDURE; RHEUMATOLOGY; SECONDARY HEALTH CARE; TERTIARY HEALTH CARE; BLOOD; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH SERVICE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROCEDURES; SEROLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL; UTILIZATION;

ADULT; ANTIBODIES, ANTINUCLEAR; BIOMARKERS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MEDICAL OVERUSE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NETHERLANDS; ODDS RATIO; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RHEUMATOLOGY; SEROLOGIC TESTS;

EID: 84961876821     PISSN: 2151464X     EISSN: 21514658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acr.22725     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen-Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R., The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013; 8: e78962.
2. Levinson W, Kallewaard M, Bhatia RS, Wolfson D, Shortt S, Kerr EA., "Choosing wisely": a growing international campaign. BMJ Qual Saf 2015; 24: 167-74.
3. Yazdany J, Schmajuk G, Robbins M, Daikh D, Beall A, Yelin E, et al., and the American College of Rheumatology Core Membership Group. Choosing wisely: the American College of Rheumatology's top 5 list of things physicians and patients should question. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2013; 65: 329-39.
4. Solomon DH, Kavanaugh AJ, Schur PH, and the American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of immunologic tests: antinuclear antibody testing. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47: 434-44.
5. Bhagat M, Sehra ST, Shahane A, Kwan M., Utility of immunologic testing in suspected rheumatologic disease. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2014; 14: 405.
6. Abeles AM, Abeles M., The clinical utility of a positive antinuclear antibody test result. Am J Med 2013; 126: 342-8.
7. Mohammadi SE, Shaik IH, Chevli P, Gonzalez-Ibarra F, Sarkar S, Acharya S, et al., Improper use of antinuclear antibody (ANA) test can result in misdiagnosis, increased patient anxiety, and wasted health care resources [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2014; 66: S795.
8. Bulbin D, Meadows A, Kelsey S, Harrison H, Denio AE., Choosing subserologies wisely: an opportunity for rheumatologic healthcare resource savings [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2014; 66: S589.
9. Sheth T, Alcid D., Choosing not so wisely: the tale of antinuclear antibody testing [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2014; 66: S589.
10. Davis L, Goldstein B, Tran V, Keniston A, Yazdany J, Hirsh J, et al., Applying Choosing Wisely: identifying inefficiencies of antinuclear antibody subserology testing in a safety net health system [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65: S1331.
11. Bulbin D, Meadows A, Denio A, Kirchner H, Kelsey S, Harrison H., Do rheumatologists (and other specialists) practice what we preach? A study of serology ordering patterns with attention to subserologies when the antinuclear antibody by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is negative; and the clinical significance of these positive subserology results [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65: S1331.
12. Ogrinc G, Mooney SE, Estrada C, Foster T, Goldmann D, Hall LW, et al., The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration. Qual Saf Health Care 2008; 17: i13-32.
13. Vossen MH, den Broeder AA, Hendriks-Roelofs F, van der Heijde DM, Reijnierse M., Improvement in deployment of MRI of the sacroiliac joints in patients suspected for spondyloarthritis using a targeted intervention: a case study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013; 52: 933-8.
14. Effective Practice and Organisation of Care. EPOC taxonomy 2002. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. URL: http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy.
15. Baird G., The laboratory test utilization management toolbox. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014; 24: 223-34.
16. Bonaguri C, Melegari A, Ballabio A, Parmeggiani M, Russo A, Battistelli L, et al., Italian multicentre study for application of a diagnostic algorithm in autoantibody testing for autoimmune rheumatic disease: conclusive results. Autoimmun Rev 2011; 11: 1-5.
17. Tampoia M, Fontana A, Di SF, Maggiolini P, Pansini N., Application of a diagnostic algorithm in autoantibody testing: assessment of clinical effectiveness and economic efficiency. Clin Chim Acta 2003; 333: 181-3.
18. Solomon DH, Hashimoto H, Daltroy L, Liang MH., Techniques to improve physicians' use of diagnostic tests: a new conceptual framework. JAMA 1998; 280: 2020-7.
19. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al., Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6: CD000259.
20. Kobewka DM, Ronksley PE, McKay JA, Forster AJ, van Walraven C., Influence of educational, audit and feedback, system based, and incentive and penalty interventions to reduce laboratory test utilization: a systematic review. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015; 53: 157-83.
21. Marshall M, Pagel C, French C, Utley M, Allwood D, Fulop N, et al., Moving improvement research closer to practice: the researcher-in-residence model. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23: 801-5.