An interventional study of Education and feedback in Rheumatic Diseases, sponsored by Sint Maartenskliniek. Completed at 3 sites in Netherlands. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-04-06.
Sponsored by Sint Maartenskliniek · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
The aim of this study is to assess the effect of a simple intervention (a combination of education and feedback) on Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) testing.
This aim was chosen because of the known overuse of many laboratory tests, of which ANA testing is one. As overuse of ANA tests can have negative consequences (both for patients and society), the investigators designed an intervention to see how this would influence Antinuclear Antibody testing by rheumatologists.
380 studies on the registry are indexed under Rheumatic Diseases; 79 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 29 is below the median of 73 across 213 interventional studies indexed under Rheumatic Diseases.
Browse Rheumatic Diseases studies →Sint Maartenskliniek is the lead sponsor of 29 studies on the registry; 5 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Inclusion Criteria rheumatologists:
Exclusion Criteria rheumatologists:
Inclusion Criteria patients - all patients with an ANA test requested by an included rheumatologist during the study period
Exclusion Criteria patients
- patients with an ANA test requested during a clinical admission
The intervention consisted of a one-hour, small group educational session. During this session information on rational ANA testing was provided and feedback on current ANA testing was provided to the rheumatologists. A booster session with the same components was held 6 months after the first session.
Behavioral: Education and feedback
Change from baseline (pre-intervention) ANA/new patient ratio (APR) at 12 months (post-intervention)
Number of ANA tests divided by the number of new patients
Time frame: Pre- and post-intervention (both 12 months)
Change from baseline (pre-intervention) % of positive ANA tests at 12 months (post-intervention)
Percentage of ANA tests reported as positive by the local laboratory. ANA tests reported as 'weakly positive' are regarded as negative.
Time frame: Pre- and post-intervention (both 12 months)
Change from baseline (pre-intervention) % of repeated ANA testing at 12 months (post-intervention)
Percentage of patients with ≥1 ANA test in 12 months (pre- or post-intervention period)
Time frame: Pre- and post-intervention (both 12 months)
Change from baseline (pre-intervention) % of ANA associated diagnoses at 12 months (post-intervention)
Percentage of patients, in which an ANA is done during the study period, with final diagnosis of SLE, SSc, PM/DM, MCTD or SS
Time frame: Pre- and post-intervention (both 12 months)
Change from baseline (pre-intervention) APR variation between rheumatologists at 12 months (post-intervention)
Standard deviation around the mean APR, calculated from the APRs of the individual rheumatologists
Time frame: Pre- and post-intervention (both 12 months)
Change from baseline (pre-intervention) reaching the of target APR at 12 months (post-intervention)
Difference (percentage) between the actual APR and the target-APR defined during the intervention
Time frame: Pre- and post-intervention (both 12 months)
This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2015. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Sint Maartenskliniek