Assessing the Predictive Validity of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Criteria for Performing Carotid Endarterectomy

Published in: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, v. 14, no. 4, Fall 1998, p. 707-727

Posted on on January 01, 1998

by Paul G. Shekelle, Mark R. Chassin, Rolla Edward Park

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

The authors assessed the predictive validity of an expert panel's ratings of the appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy by comparing ratings to the results of subsequent randomized clinical trials. They found the trials confirmed the ratings for 44 indications (covering almost 30% of operations performed in 1981) and refuted the ratings for none.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.