Measurements of the quality of health care, in particular the underuse and
overuse of medical therapies and diagnostic tests, often involve employment
of medical practice guidelines to assess the appropriateness of treatments
. This paper presents a case study of a Bayesian analysis for the developme
nt of medical guidelines based on expert opinion, using ordinal categorical
rater data. We develop guidelines for the use of coronary angiography foll
owing an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for 890 clinical indications usi
ng statistical models fit to appropriateness ratings obtained from a nine-m
ember expert panel. The main foci of our analyses were on the estimation of
an appropriateness score for each of the clinical indications, an associat
ed measure of precision, and functions of the underlying score. We consider
ed two classes of models that assume the ratings are either in the form of
grouped normal data or are ungrouped variables arising from a normal distri
bution, while permitting rater effects and indication heterogeneity in both
. We estimated models using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods and constructe
d indices quantifying appropriateness based on posterior probabilities of s
elected model parameters. We compared our model-based approach to the stand
ard approach currently employed in medical guideline development and found
that the standard approach correctly identified 99 per cent of the appropri
ate indications while overestimating appropriateness 18 per cent of the tim
e compared to our model-based approach. Copyright (C) 1999 John Wiley & Son
s, Ltd.