The authors initiated this study to consider if the formal preoperative assessment of appropriate or inappropriate utilization of cataract surgery by an expert panel could predict postoperative improvement or decline in visual acuity. They evaluated the association between ratings of appropriateness, as determined by the RAND-UCLA method, and measurements of postoperative visual acuity using Fisher’s exact tests for tables greater than 2 × 2. For 768 patients, improvement of at least 2 Snellen chart lines occurred in 89% of surgeries rated as appropriate or appropriate and crucial, 68% rated as uncertain, and 36% rated as inappropriate (P < 0.0001, Fisher’s exact test). These results provide evidence supporting the validity of the RAND-UCLA method to assess the appropriateness of surgery.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Tobacman JK, Lee P, Zimmerman B, et al. Assessment of appropriateness of cataract surgery in ten academic medical centers in 1990 . Ophthalmology. 1996; 103: 207–15 .
2.
2. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Cataract in Adults: Management of Functional Impairment. Rockville (MD): DHHS ; 1993.
3.
3. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Cataract in the Otherwise Healthy Adult Eye. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology ; 1989.
4.
4. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, et al. National study of cataract surgery outcomes: variation in 4-month post-operative outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures . Ophthalmology. 1994; 101: 1131–40 .
5.
5. United States Congress. Senate. Special Committee on Aging. Cataract surgery: guidelines and outcomes: Workshop before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, Washington, DC, April 21, 1993. Washington (DC): Government Printing Office .
6.
6. Leape LL, Hilborne LH, Schwartz JS, et al. The appropriateness of coronary artery bypass graft surgery in academic medical centers. Working Group of the Appropriateness Project of the Academic Medical Center Consortium . Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125(1): 8–18 .
7.
7. Scott EA, Black N. Appropriateness of cholecystectomy in the United Kingdom: a consensus panel approach . Gut. 1991; 32: 1066–70 .
8.
8. Park RE, Fink A, Brook RH, et al. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures . Am J Public Health. 1986; 76: 766–72 .
9.
9. Bernstein SJ, McGlynn EA, Siu AL, et al. The appropriateness of hysterectomy: a comparison of care in seven health plans. Health Maintenance Organization Quality of Care Consortium . JAMA. 1993; 269(18): 2398–402 .
10.
10. Shekelle PG, Coulter I, Hurwitz EL, et al. Congruence between decisions to initiate chiropractic spinal manipulation for low back pain and appropriateness criteria in North America . Ann Intern Med. 1998; 129(1): 9–17 .
11.
11. Matchar DB, Oddone EZ, McCrory DC, et al. Influence of projected complication rates on estimated appropriate use rates for carotid endarterectomy. Appropriateness Project Investigators. Academic Medical Center Consortium . Health Serv Res. 1997; 32(3): 325–42 .
12.
12. Larequi-Lauber T, Vader JP, Burnand B, et al. Appropriateness of indications for surgery of lumbar disc hernia and spinal stenosis . Spine. 1997; 22(2): 203–9 .
13.
13. Hilborne LH, Leape LL, Bernstein SJ, et al. The appropriateness of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in New York State . JAMA. 1993; 269: 761–5 .
14.
14. Phelps CE. The methodologic foundations of studies of the appropriateness of medical care . N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(17): 1241–5 .
15.
15. Hemingway H, Crook AM, Feder G, et al. Underuse of coronary revascularization procedures in patients considered appropriate candidates for revascularization . N Engl J Med. 2001; 344(9): 645–54 .
16.
16. Tobacman JK, Lee P, Zimmerman B, Kolder H, et al. Assessment of appropriateness of cataract surgery at ten academic medical centers in 1990 . Ophthalmology. 1996; 103(2): 207–15 .
17.
17. Lee PP, Hilborne L, Kamberg C, et al. Cataract Surgery: A Literature Review and Ratings of Appropriateness and Cruciality. Santa Monica (CA): RAND ; 1993.
18.
18. Lee PP, Hilborne L, McDonald L, et al. Documentation patterns before cataract surgery at ten academic centers . Ophthalmology. 1996; 103: 1179–83 .
19.
19. Tobacman JK, Zimmerman B, Lee P, et al. Visual function impairments in relation to visual acuity, age, and gender in patients who undergo cataract surgery . Ophthalmology. 1998; 105: 1745–50 .
20.
20. Tobacman JK, Scott IU, Cyphert S, Zimmerman B. Reproducibility of measures of overuse of cataract surgery by three physician panels . Med Care. 1999; 37(9): 937–45 .
21.
21. Tobacman JK, Scott IU, Cyphert S, Zimmerman B. Comparison of appropriateness ratings for cataract surgery between convened and mail-only multidisciplinary panels . Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 490–7 .
22.
22. SAS Institute. SAS Version 8.2. SAS/STAT Software. Cary (NC): SAS Institute ; 2000.
23.
23. Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG. Categorical data analysis using the SAS® system. In: The sxr Table: 5.3 Exact Tests. Cary (NC): SAS Institute ; 1995. p. 83–102.
24.
24. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, et al. Development of the “Activities of Daily Vision Scale”: a measure of visual functional status . Med Care. 1992; 30: 1111–26 .
25.
25. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, et al. The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataract . Arch Ophthalmol. 1994; 112: 630–8 .
26.
26. Powe NR, Schein OD, Gieser SC, et al. Synthesis of the literature on visual acuity and complications following cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation. Cataract Patient Outcome Research Team . Arch Ophthalmol. 1994; 112(2): 239–52 .
27.
27. Desai P. The National Cataract Surgery Survey: II. Clinical outcomes . Eye. 1993; 7(Pt. 4): 489–94 .
28.
28. Desai P, Minassian DC, Reidy A. National Cataract Surgery Survey 1997–8: a report of the results of the clinical outcomes . Br J Ophthalmol. 1999; 83(12): 1336–40 .
29.
29. Brook RH, Kosecoff JB, Park RE, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of coronary disease: comparison of doctors’ attitudes in the USA and the UK . Lancet. 1988; 1(8588): 750–3 .
30.
30. Selby JV, Fireman BH, Lundstrom RJ, et al. Variation among hospitals in coronary-angiography practices and outcomes after myocardial infarction in a large health maintenance organization . N Engl J Med. 1996; 335(25): 1888–96 .
31.
31. Califf RM, Pryor DB, Greenfield JC Jr. Beyond randomized clinical trials: applying clinical experience in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease . Circulation. 1986; 74(6): 1191–4 .
32.
32. Chalmers TC, Berrier J, Sacks HS, et al. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline: II. Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree . Stat Med. 1987; 6(7): 733–44 .
33.
33. Lelorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large, randomized, controlled trials . N Engl J Med. 1997; 337(8): 536–42 .
34.
34. Shekelle PG, Park RE, Kahan JP, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to identify the overuse and underuse of coronary revascularization and hysterectomy . J Clin Epidemiol. 1991; 54: 1004–10 .
35.
35. Kotler TS, Diamond GA. Exercise thallim-201 scintigraphy in the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease . Ann Intern Med. 1990; 113: 684–702 .
36.
36. Walter SD, Irwig LA. Estimation of test error rates, disease prevalence and relative risk from misclassified data: a review . J Clin Epidemiol. 1988; 41: 923–37 .
