HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) case descriptions Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Permissions Request Permissions Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Poels, P. J. P. Articles by van Weel, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Poels, P. J. P. Articles by van Weel, C.

Impact of a spirometry expert system on general practitioners' decision making

Depts of ¹ General Practice, ² Medical Informatics, and ⁴ Postgraduate Training, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. ³ Dept of General Practice, Richmond Hill, ON, Canada.

CORRESPONDENCE: P. J. P. Poels, Dept of General Practice (117), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Fax: 31 243541862. E-mail: p.j.p.poels{at}hag.umcn.nl

Keywords: Computer-assisted diagnosis, expert systems, family practice, spirometry

Received: February 1, 2007
Accepted June 7, 2007

The present study assessed the impact of computerised spirometry interpretation expert support on the diagnostic achievements of general practitioners (GPs), and on GPs' decision making in diagnosing chronic respiratory disease.

A cluster-randomised controlled trial was performed in 78 GPs who each completed 10 standardised paper case descriptions. Intervention consisted of support for GPs' spirometry interpretation either by an expert system (expert support group) or by sham information (control group). Agreement of GPs' diagnoses was compared with an expert panel judgement, which served as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were: additional diagnostic test rates; width of differential diagnosis; certainty of diagnosis; estimated severity of disease; referral rate; and medication or nonmedication changes. Effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

There were no differences between the expert support and control groups in the agreement between GPs and expert panel diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR (95% CI) 1.08 (0.70–1.66)), asthma (1.13 (0.70–1.80)), and absence of respiratory disease (1.32 (0.61–2.86)). A higher rate of additional diagnostic tests was observed in the expert support group (2.5 (1.17–5.35)).

Computerised spirometry expert support had no detectable benefit on general practitioners' diagnostic achievements and the decision-making process when diagnosing chronic respiratory disease.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Calverley Fulfilling the promise of primary care spirometry Eur. Respir. J., January 1, 2008; 31(1): 8 - 10. [Full Text] [PDF]