ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the utility of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RAM) in validating expert consensus-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on electrocardiogram (ECG). METHODS: According to the RAM user's manual, nine panelists comprising various experts who routinely handle ECGs were asked to reach a consensus in three phases: a preparatory phase (round 0), an online test phase (round 1), and a face-to-face expert panel meeting (round 2). In round 0, the objectives and future timeline of the study were elucidated to the nine expert panelists with a summary of relevant literature. In round 1, 100 ECG questions prepared by two skilled cardiologists were answered, and the success rate was calculated by dividing the number of correct answers by 9. Furthermore, the questions were stratified into "Appropriate," "Discussion," or "Inappropriate" according to the median score and interquartile range (IQR) of appropriateness rating by nine panelists. In round 2, the validity of the 100 ECG questions was discussed in an expert panel meeting according to the results of round 1 and finally reassessed as "Appropriate," "Candidate," "Revision," and "Defer." RESULTS: In round 1 results, the average success rate of the nine experts was 0.89. Using the median score and IQR, 54 questions were classified as " Discussion." In the expert panel meeting in round 2, 23% of the original 100 questions was ultimately deemed inappropriate, although they had been prepared by two skilled cardiologists. Most of the 46 questions categorized as "Appropriate" using the median score and IQR in round 1 were considered "Appropriate" even after round 2 (44/46, 95.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the median score and IQR allowed for a more objective determination of question validity. The RAM may help select appropriate questions, contributing to the preparation of higher-quality tests.
Subject(s)
Electrocardiography , Humans , Consensus , Reproducibility of Results , Clinical Competence/standards , Educational Measurement/methods , Cardiology/standardsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Left atrial volume index (LAVI) of >34 mL/m2 is the cutoff value for identifying an enlarged left atrium. The definition of left atrial (LA) reverse remodeling after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is undetermined. We hypothesized that patients with LA dilatation who achieve normal LA volume (LAVI<34 mL/m2) after AF ablation have better long-term outcomes than those who do not. Furthermore, we investigated whether patients with a normal LA volume can also achieve normal LA function with AF ablation. METHODS: We enrolled 140 AF patients with baseline LAVI of ≥34 mL/m2, without AF recurrence for 1 year after the initial AF ablation. We acquired conventional and speckle-tracking echocardiographic parameters within 24 hour and at 1 year after the procedure. To define the normal range of LA function, age- and sex-matched controls without a history of AF were also enrolled. RESULTS: After restoration of sinus rhythm, LA structural and functional parameters significantly improved, and 75 patients (54%) had normal LA volume. During a median follow-up of 44 (31-61) months, 32 patients (23%) experienced a late recurrence of AF (AF recurrence >1 year). Patients who achieved normal LA volume after AF ablation had fewer late recurrences than those who did not (P < .01). However, LA abnormalities, especially LA dysfunction, persisted in AF patients even when the LA volume was normalized compared with controls. CONCLUSION: Patients who achieved normal LA volume had better long-term outcomes of AF ablation than those who did not; however, LA abnormalities persisted even after successful ablation of AF.
