Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11210596›Full record

ArticleSozial- und Praventivmedizin2000

[Reproducibility of a German scale for assessing the need for inpatient treatment in surgery].

S Schneeweiss, O Sangha, H Siebert, M Hübner, J Fuhrmann, M Wildner, J Witte

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sozial- und Praventivmedizin, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

S SchneeweissBayerischer Forschungsverbund Public Health und Institut für Medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie (IBE), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München.
O Sangha
H Siebert
M Hübner
J Fuhrmann
M Wildner
J Witte

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the past years, the assessment of the appropriateness of hospital utilization has become increasingly important in the German health care system. Previous evaluations by regional review organizations in several states demonstrated the need for a standardized, reliable, and valid instrument to evaluate the appropriateness of inpatient care. Objective of the study is to test the reliability of a German adaptation of the "Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol" (AEP). Among all 2672 admissions from the department of surgery of a regional medical center during one calendar year, 54 patients were randomly selected to evaluate the inter-rater reliability and 51 patients to test intra-rater reliability. Overall agreement, specific agreement and Kappa statistics were estimated for every hospital admissions and all consecutive hospital days. The German AEP showed an inter-rater agreement of 74% (62-86%) for hospital admissions (Kappa = 0.44) and 84% (79%-88%) for all hospital days (K = 0.55). Intra-rater reliability was 88% (79%-97%) for hospital admissions (K = 0.60) and 88% (85%-92%) for all hospital days (K = 0.70). The observed agreement is independent of length of hospital stay and proportion of appropriate days. A standardized instrument with known metric properties is essential for quality management in hospitals to prepare for an increasingly consolidating health care market in Germany. The German AEP is a reliable instrument, which will allow to identify inefficiencies in the management of surgical inpatients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNational Health ProgramsObserver VariationPatient AdmissionReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentSurgical Procedures, OperativeUtilization Review

Identifiers

PMID11210596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.