Choosing Wisely Brazil: top 5 low-value practices that should be avoided in musculoskeletal physical therapy.

BACKGROUND: The Choosing Wisely initiative aims to promote discussions among healthcare professionals and patients about low-value, or potentially harmful, health practices. OBJECTIVES: To describe the process of development of the Brazilian Choosing Wisely list for musculoskeletal physical therapy. METHODS: The Brazilian Choosing Wisely list was developed in accordance with the recommendations of the American Board of Internal Medicine. A three-step procedure was used. First, an expert panel was selected, and a modified Delphi approach was used to obtain a list of evidence-based statements. Second, members of the research team performed content analysis. Third, a national survey was conducted to present selected statements to a sample of physical therapists. Participants were invited to vote considering the level of importance of selected statements for physical therapists and patients. RESULTS: The expert panel comprised 17 physical therapists. The median age of the expert panel was 33 [interquartile range (IQR) 29 to 37; range 26 to 60] years and the median length of professional experience was 12 (IQR 10 to 18) years. A list of eight recommendations was presented to a national sample composed of 1127 physical therapists. The median length of professional experience of the national sample was 10 (IQR 5 to 15) years. Based on the number of votes, the five most important recommendations were included in the Brazilian Choosing Wisely list for musculoskeletal physical therapy. Descriptive and frequency analysis were used to report the results. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian Choosing Wisely list for musculoskeletal physical therapy provides an opportunity for physical therapists, patients, society and policy makers to collaboratively discuss tests and treatments that are unnecessary or potentially harmful.

Inappropriate screening of obstructive coronary artery disease during pre-anesthesia assessment of candidates for non-cardiac surgery.

Preoperative evaluation in elective surgeries has been associated with successful surgical treatment. However, there is no solid scientific evidence that screening for coronary artery disease (CAD) reduces surgical risk. The aims of this study were to describe the frequency of inappropriate investigation of obstructive CAD induced by pre-anesthetic assessment in individuals without cardiovascular symptoms (candidates for low- to intermediate-risk surgeries) and to evaluate predictors of this conduct. We performed a retrospective evaluation of medical records of anesthesiology services from patients undergoing pre-anesthesia assessment between May 2015 and May 2016, including those with functional capacity ≥4 metabolic equivalents without a diagnosis of heart disease. A total of 778 medical records (47±16 years of age, 62.6% female) were studied. A private hospital performed 50.1% of the surgeries and 60.4% were of intermediate risk. Only 2.7% (95%CI: 1.7-4.1%) were screened for CAD, and 91% of these requests were mediated by cardiology consultations performed during pre-anesthetic testing visits. Factors associated with screening for CAD were hypertension, diabetes, moderate systemic disease (ASA III), cardiac consultation, previous diagnosis of CAD, and admission to a private hospital. Independent predictors were private hospitals (OR: 3.9; 95%CI: 1.3-11.0), ASA III (OR: 5.3; 95%CI: 1.7-16.2), and hypertension (OR: 3.8; 95%CI: 1.5-9.8). The frequency of inappropriate requests for CAD screening in asymptomatic individuals without untreated systemic diseases was low in pre-anesthetic visits. Although infrequent, screening for CAD is more common in the private setting, in patients with poorer health status, and is usually prescribed during cardiology consultation.

Inappropriate screening of obstructive coronary artery disease during pre-anesthesia assessment of candidates for non-cardiac surgery

Preoperative evaluation in elective surgeries has been associated with successful surgical treatment. However, there is no solid scientific evidence that screening for coronary artery disease (CAD) reduces surgical risk. The aims of this study were to describe the frequency of inappropriate investigation of obstructive CAD induced by pre-anesthetic assessment in individuals without cardiovascular symptoms (candidates for low- to intermediate-risk surgeries) and to evaluate predictors of this conduct. We performed a retrospective evaluation of medical records of anesthesiology services from patients undergoing pre-anesthesia assessment between May 2015 and May 2016, including those with functional capacity ≥4 metabolic equivalents without a diagnosis of heart disease. A total of 778 medical records (47±16 years of age, 62.6% female) were studied. A private hospital performed 50.1% of the surgeries and 60.4% were of intermediate risk. Only 2.7% (95%CI: 1.7-4.1%) were screened for CAD, and 91% of these requests were mediated by cardiology consultations performed during pre-anesthetic testing visits. Factors associated with screening for CAD were hypertension, diabetes, moderate systemic disease (ASA III), cardiac consultation, previous diagnosis of CAD, and admission to a private hospital. Independent predictors were private hospitals (OR: 3.9; 95%CI: 1.3-11.0), ASA III (OR: 5.3; 95%CI: 1.7-16.2), and hypertension (OR: 3.8; 95%CI: 1.5-9.8). The frequency of inappropriate requests for CAD screening in asymptomatic individuals without untreated systemic diseases was low in pre-anesthetic visits. Although infrequent, screening for CAD is more common in the private setting, in patients with poorer health status, and is usually prescribed during cardiology consultation.

Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients.

Complementary examinations are "inadequate" whenever the likelihood of benefits from their indication is lower than the negative results. The low benefit is a result of poor performance in detecting relevant changes that lead to improved behavior. However, inadequate examinations are prevalent and little is known about patients' notions of the usefulness of such indications. The aim of this study was to describe relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and to assess the level of agreement between patients and cardiologists regarding their usefulness. Adults without known cardiovascular disease who were referred for echocardiogram by inappropriate criteria according to the American College of Cardiology were selected. Relevant findings were defined by any change in the degree of moderate to severe, according to the American Society of Echocardiography. We tested the level of agreement between the patients who underwent echocardiographic examination and the physicians who requested the exam through a standard questionnaire. Five hundred patients were included, with average age of 52±17 years (47% males). Only 17 patients had any relevant changes (3.4%, 95%CI=2 to 5.4%). The most frequent alterations included valve changes in 8 and diastolic dysfunction grade II in 6 patients. Eighty-seven examinations were performed to determine the level of agreement between patients and cardiologists. For the question "Is this test really necessary?", 92% of patients responded positively, compared with 5% of cardiologists (Kappa negative 0.04; P=0.01). The frequency of relevant findings was low in inadequate echocardiograms and patients and cardiologists had a different perception regarding its usefulness.

Low prevalence of relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and discordant perceptions between cardiologists and patients

Complementary examinations are "inadequate" whenever the likelihood of benefits from their indication is lower than the negative results. The low benefit is a result of poor performance in detecting relevant changes that lead to improved behavior. However, inadequate examinations are prevalent and little is known about patients' notions of the usefulness of such indications. The aim of this study was to describe relevant findings in inappropriate echocardiograms and to assess the level of agreement between patients and cardiologists regarding their usefulness. Adults without known cardiovascular disease who were referred for echocardiogram by inappropriate criteria according to the American College of Cardiology were selected. Relevant findings were defined by any change in the degree of moderate to severe, according to the American Society of Echocardiography. We tested the level of agreement between the patients who underwent echocardiographic examination and the physicians who requested the exam through a standard questionnaire. Five hundred patients were included, with average age of 52±17 years (47% males). Only 17 patients had any relevant changes (3.4%, 95%CI=2 to 5.4%). The most frequent alterations included valve changes in 8 and diastolic dysfunction grade II in 6 patients. Eighty-seven examinations were performed to determine the level of agreement between patients and cardiologists. For the question "Is this test really necessary?", 92% of patients responded positively, compared with 5% of cardiologists (Kappa negative 0.04; P=0.01). The frequency of relevant findings was low in inadequate echocardiograms and patients and cardiologists had a different perception regarding its usefulness.

Predictive value of ophthalmic artery Doppler velocimetry in relation to development of pre-eclampsia.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that ophthalmic artery Doppler velocimetry is predictive of the development of pre-eclampsia (PE). METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study that included pregnant women in the second trimester who had risk factors for PE. Seven ophthalmic artery Doppler parameters, in addition to uterine artery (UtA) Doppler and clinical variables, were investigated for their prognostic value with respect to PE. RESULTS: A total of 347 women were recruited, of whom 40 developed PE. A comparison of the mean ophthalmic artery Doppler parameter values between women with and those without PE showed statistically significant differences in several parameters: peak systolic velocity, end-diastolic velocity, mean velocity, peak mesodiastolic velocity (PMDV) and peak ratio. After adjusting for confounding variables, only PMDV remained statistically significant (P < 0.001), with an area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.73. The best cut-off for predicting PE was a PMDV of > 22.11 cm/s, with sensitivity of 70%, specificity of 75%, positive likelihood ratio of 2.8, negative likelihood ratio of 0.4, positive predictive value of 28% and negative predictive value of 95%. The AUC increased from 0.72 to 0.78 when the PMDV was incorporated into a prediction model based on clinical variables, demonstrating that this marker increased the discriminatory capability of the model. The performance of ophthalmic artery Doppler was similar to that of UtA Doppler for predicting PE. Additionally, the AUC increased significantly from 0.82 to 0.88 when the PMDV was incorporated into the model containing clinical variables and UtA Doppler indices. CONCLUSION: A high ophthalmic artery PMDV in the second trimester of pregnancy is an independent predictor of PE that increases the discriminatory ability of clinical markers, as well as of models that include clinical variables and UtA Doppler indices.