All but 2 (97.6%) were board certified in cardiology, the median number of years in practice was 14.5 (interquartile range: 7.5 to 20.0 years; range: 1.0 to 43.0 years), and the median proportion of time spent in research was 5% (interquartile range: 0% <a href="http://www.selleckchem.com/products/OSI-906.html
">selleck compound</a> to 15%; range 0% to 75%). Overall, there was good concordance (84%) in appropriateness category assignments between the physician group and the AUC Technical Panel for the 68 indications. However, rates of nonagreement were 66% in the physician group. For the 36 clinical indications identified as appropriate by the AUC Technical Panel, there was excellent concordance, with the physician group rating the indications as appropriate 94% (34 of 36) of the time (Fig. 1, Table 1). Both interventional and noninterventional cardiologists rated the vast majority of these indications as appropriate (Online Appendix), and physician ratings did not differ by number of years in practice or percent of time dedicated to research (Table 1). There was, however, greater variation (i.e., wider distribution) in the ratings among physicians in this study than in the AUC Technical Panel. Whereas the Technical Panel had nonagreement in 31% (11 of 36) of the clinical indications categorized as appropriate, the physician group had nonagreement in 44% (16 of 36) of the indications (Table 2). For the 22 clinical indications rated as uncertain <a href="http://www.selleckchem.com/products/ink128.html
">find more</a> by the AUC Technical Panel, both groups rated the indications as uncertain 73% (16 of 22) of the time (Table 1). Of the 6 discordant indications, the physician group rated 3 scenarios (12c, 14c, and 57b) as appropriate and 3 (25a, 28a, and 50a) as inappropriate (Fig. 2). Although there was similar concordance between interventionalists and noninterventionalists with the AUC Technical Panel, physicians with ��10% time dedicated to research had higher concordance with the AUC Technical Panel than physicians with <10% research time (Table 1). Finally, rates of nonagreement for scenarios categorized as uncertain were 100% in the physician group (22 of 22) and 82% (18 of 22) in the AUC Technical Panel. For the 10 clinical indications identified as inappropriate by the AUC Technical Panel, the physician group assigned an inappropriate classification for only 70% (7 of 10) of the indications categorized as inappropriate by the AUC Technical Panel (Fig. 3, Table 1), with 100% concordance among noninterventional cardiologists and 70% <a href="http://www.selleck.cn/products/ABT-737.html
">ABT 737</a> among interventional cardiologists (Online Appendix). Importantly, there was significant variation among physician ratings for these clinical scenarios, with nonagreement rates of 70% in the physician group compared with 20% in the AUC Technical Panel (Table 2). Interventionalists and physicians with ��10% research time had lower rates of nonagreement than their counterparts. In a multivariable model, the presence of a proximal LAD stenosis was associated with higher rates of physician nonagreement (adjusted rate ratio [RR]: 1.