You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 117 No. 3, March 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (13)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Surgical Decision Making

The Reproducibility of Clinical Judgment

Ira M. Rutkow, MD, MPH, DrPH

Arch Surg. 1982;117(3):337-340.


Abstract

• A considerable portion of negative surgical second opinions may represent nothing more than reasonable interobserver variation (reliability) among clinicians. In a previous study, four fictional cases were developed for each of seven different disease processes. The appropriate case histories were mailed to a random sample of board-certified surgeons. They were asked to render a decision on the need for elective operative intervention. This report presents a two-year follow-up, in which all surgeons who responded to the original questionnaire were asked to reevaluate the same vignettes. By comparing an individual surgeon's set of responses, the presence of intraobserver variation (reproducibility) was noted. The results of this follow-up showed that a surgeon's judgment with regard to the same hypothetical elective clinical situation seems to differ over time. If both the reproducibility and reliability of clinical surgical judgment are as variable as these studies indicate, then the theoretical premise on which second-opinion programs are based would seem to be in need of reexamination.

(Arch Surg 1982;117:337-340)



Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Surgery and Health Services Administration, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore. Dr Rutkow is an Edwin L. Crosby Memorial Fellow of the Hospital Research and Educational Trust.


Footnotes

Accepted for publication May 12, 1981.

Read before the 14th meeting of the Association for Academic Surgery, Birmingham, Ala, Nov 6, 1980.

Reprint requests to Apt 71, 595 Northfield Ave, West Orange, NJ 07052 (Dr Rutkow).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Outcome After Surgery: An Evolving Concept
Kazmers
PERSPECT VASC SURG ENDOVASC THER 1995;8:109-128.
 

The Challenge
Eddy
JAMA 1990;263:287-290.
ABSTRACT  

Clinical Judgment : an Overview
Records and Weiss
Communication Disorders Quarterly 1990;13:153-165.
ABSTRACT  

A Comparison of Decision Analysis and Second Opinions for Surgical Decisions
Clarke
Arch Surg 1985;120:844-847.
ABSTRACT  

Surgical Decision Making and Operative Rates
Rutkow and Starfield
Arch Surg 1984;119:899-905.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1982 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.