Showing papers by "Michele Galli published in 2002"
Journal Article•
TL;DR: In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, about 40% of Holter exams are inappropriate; appropriately prescribed exams are more often abnormal and useful; cardiologist-prescribed exams are significantly more appropriate, abnormal and Useful.
Abstract: BACKGROUND We evaluated the appropriateness of indications to Holter monitoring performed on ambulatory patients during 4 weeks in 21 laboratories in Tuscany and Umbria, Italy. METHODS We collected the following data: the appropriateness of the prescription (according to the guidelines of the Italian Federation of Cardiology), the prescribing physician (cardiologist vs non-cardiologist), the synthetic result (normal vs abnormal) and the clinical utility (useful vs useless) of each exam. RESULTS We evaluated 863 prescriptions (population: 435 males, 428 females; mean age 64 years, range 15-90 years). The indications to the test were of class I (appropriate) in 59.6%, of class II (doubtfully appropriate) in 11.7%, and of class III (inappropriate) in 28.7% of the cases. In 33% of the cases the exam was considered abnormal. In particular, an abnormal result was found in 37.9% of class I, in 36.7% of class II, and in 24.5% of class III exams (p < 0.05). The exam was considered useful in 46.7% of the cases. In particular, a useful result was found in 59.2% of class I, in 45.5% of class II, and in 21% of class III exams (p < 0.05). Cardiologists prescribed 373/863 tests (43.2%). Their indications were of class I in 67.6%, of class II in 12% and of class III in 24% of the cases vs 53.7, 11.4 and 34.9% of non-cardiologists' prescriptions (p < 0.05). Abnormal findings were found in 40% of cardiologist- vs 27.6% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.31-2.32; p < 0.05); similarly, clinically useful information could be derived from 59.8% of cardiologist- vs 36.7% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 2.56, 95% confidence interval 1.94-3.37; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, about 40% of Holter exams are inappropriate; appropriately prescribed exams are more often abnormal and useful; cardiologist-prescribed exams are significantly more appropriate, abnormal and useful.
2 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, less than half of the prescriptions for non-invasive diagnostic tests are appropriate: appropriately prescribed exams more often provide abnormal and useful results; cardiologist-prescribed exams are more often appropriate, abnormal and Useful.
Abstract: BACKGROUND We evaluated the appropriateness of the prescription of echocardiography, exercise testing, Holter monitoring and vascular sonography for ambulatory patients, performed during 4 weeks in 21 outpatient laboratories in Tuscany and Umbria, Italy. METHODS We collected the following data: the appropriateness of the prescription (according to the guidelines of the Italian Federation of Cardiology), the prescribing physician (cardiologist vs noncardiologist), the synthetic result (normal vs abnormal) and the clinical utility (useful vs useless) of each exam. RESULTS We evaluated 5614 prescriptions (patients: 3027 males, 2587 females; mean age 63 years, range 14-96 years). The indication to the test was of class I (appropriate) in 45.3%, of class II (doubtfully appropriate) in 34.8% and of class III (inappropriate) in 19.9% of the cases. The test was abnormal in 58.3% of class I exams vs 17% of class III exams (p < 0.05). The test was useful in 72.4% of class I exams vs 17.1% of class III exams (p < 0.05). The test was prescribed by a cardiologist in 1882 cases (33.5%). Cardiologist-prescribed exams were of class I in 57.3%, of class II in 32.4% and of class III in 10.3% of the cases vs 39.2, 36.1 and 24.7% of non-cardiologist-prescribed exams (p < 0.05). Cardiologist-prescribed exams were abnormal in 53.4% of the cases vs 39% of those of non-cardiologists' (odds ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.58-1.97; p < 0.05). Cardiologist-prescribed exams were useful in 64.7% of the cases vs 44.4% of those of non-cardiologists' (odds ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 2.02-2.53; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, less than half of the prescriptions for non-invasive diagnostic tests are appropriate: appropriately prescribed exams more often provide abnormal and useful results; cardiologist-prescribed exams are more often appropriate, abnormal and useful.
1 citations