ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2006
Agreement of medical decisions in occupational health as a quality requirement.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of human ratings reliability on machine learning model performance: a case study in infant pain assessment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of medical decisions' effectiveness: a 4-year evidence-based study in a health care setting.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWorkers' medical examination by the occupational physician (OPs) is a decision-making process whose output consists of a variety of evaluations, including assessment of fitness for work. The medical literature reports that there is no complete agreement among OPs assessing the same workers, evidencing a critical aspect of professional performance. This study aims at evaluating the inter-individual variability of medical decisions by different occupational physicians.
methodsFour specialists in occupational medicine participated in the study. Each specialist examined 100 records of subjects with different medical conditions selected from about 2,500 health care workers. Each physician completed a form including the following items: assessment of fitness for work, advice to workers, need of further investigations, report of occupational disease, recommendation for the general practitioner. To assess the inter-individual variability the percent agreement and the agreement strength or Cohen's kappa were measured.
resultsThe study shows a variable agreement in the assessment of fitness for work among different professionals, with percent agreement ranging from 58% for the whole group to an average of 77% for physicians' pairs. By taking into account the variability expected by chance, the agreement ranged from fair to substantial. The agreement of other decisions (workers' advice, referral to other specialists, request of further investigation, report of occupational disease, recommendation for the general practitioner) was more variable.
conclusionThe study shows that an inter-individual variability exists for some decisions taken by OPs. According to the need to continuously improve professional practice, in the absence of qualitative standards based on the outcome, reduction of inter-individual variability that should be considered as a quality requirement of the performance of the occupational physician.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16450158What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.