Abstract

Methods: We conducted an international study of IPF diagnosis among a large group of physicians and compared their diagnostic performance to a panel of IPF experts (n=34). Participants evaluated 60 consecutive cases of interstitial lung disease. Diagnostic agreement was measured using weighted kappa coefficient (κw). Outcome distinctions between IPF and other diffuse lung diseases were used to validate diagnostic accuracy for first-choice diagnoses of IPF and were compared using the C-index. Results: 404 physicians completed the study. Agreement for IPF diagnosis was higher among expert physicians (κw =0.65 [IQR 0.53-0.72], P 20 years experience and MDT meeting attendance independently predicted prognostic accuracy of IPF diagnosis. The prognostic accuracy of academic physicians with >20 years experience (C-index=0.72, [IQR 0.0-0.73], p=0.229)) and non-university hospital physicians with more than 20 years experience, attending weekly MDT meetings (C-index=0.72, [IQR 0.70-0.72], p=0.052), did not differ significantly (p=0.229 and p=0.052 respectively) from the expert panel (C-index=0.74 [IQR 0.72-0.75]. Conclusion: Experienced respiratory physicians working at university-based institutions make diagnoses of IPF with similar prognostic accuracy to an international panel of IPF experts. Regular MDT meeting attendance improves the prognostic accuracy of experienced non-university practitioners to levels achieved by IPF experts.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.