No abstract

No abstract

The use of standardised tools is an essential component of evidence-based practice. Reliance on standardised tools places demands on clinicians to understand their properties, strengths, and weaknesses, in order to interpret results and make clinical decisions. This paper makes a case for clinicians to consider measurement error (ME) indices Coefficient of Repeatability (CR) or the Smallest Real Difference (SRD) over relative reliability coefficients like the Pearson’s (r) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), while selecting tools to measure change and inferring change as true. The authors present statistical methods that are part of the current approach to evaluate test–retest reliability of assessment tools and outcome measurements. Selected examples from a previous test–retest study are used to elucidate the added advantages of knowledge of the ME of an assessment tool in clinical decision making. The CR is computed in the same units as the assessment tool and sets the boundary of the minimal detectable true change that can be measured by the tool.

Objective To assess whether screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms in men reduces mortality. Design Population based randomised controlled trial of ultrasound screening, with intention to treat analysis of age standardised mortality. Setting Community based screening programme in Western Australia. Participants 41 000 men aged 65-83 years randomised to intervention and control groups. Intervention Invitation to ultrasound screening. Main outcome measure Deaths from abdominal aortic aneurysm in the five years after the start of screening. Results The corrected response to invitation to screening was 70%. The crude prevalence was 7.2% for aortic diameter ≥ 30 mm and 0.5% for diameter ≥ 55 mm. Twice as many men in the intervention group than in the control group underwent elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (107 v 54, P = 0.002, 2 test). Between scheduled screening and the end of follow up 18 men in the intervention group and 25 in the control group died from abdominal aortic aneurysm, yielding a mortality ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.33 to 1.11). Any benefit was almost entirely in men aged between 65 and 75 years, where the ratio was reduced to 0.19 (0.04 to 0.89). Conclusions At a whole population level screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms was not effective in men aged 65-83 years and did not reduce overall death rates. The success of screening depends on choice of target age group and the exclusion of ineligible men. It is also important to assess the current rate of elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm as in some communities this may already approach a level that reduces the potential benefit of population based screening.

No abstract