ArticleWorld journal of surgery2003
Priority setting in surgery: improve the process and share the learning.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a prioritisation framework for patients in need of coronary artery angiography.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Political prioritization and the competing definitions of adolescent pregnancy in Kenya: An application of the Public Arenas Model.PloS one · 2020Article
- A preliminary investigation of wait times for child and adolescent mental health services in Canada.Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent · 2011Article
- Waiting for surgery from the patient perspective.Psychology research and behavior management · 2009Article
- Principles versus procedures in making health care coverage decisions: addressing inevitable conflicts.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2008Article
- Adoption of an innovation to repair aortic aneurysms at a Canadian hospital: a qualitative case study and evaluation.BMC health services research · 2007Article
- Priority setting in developing countries health care institutions: the case of a Ugandan hospital.BMC health services research · 2006Article
- What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?BMC health services research · 2005Article
- Setting priorities in health care organizations: criteria, processes, and parameters of success.BMC health services research · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgeons and surgical programs encounter priority-setting challenges every day, such as in regard to purchasing new technologies or managing waiting lists for elective surgery. The purpose of this paper was to explore priority setting in surgery. Traditionally in surgery, priority-setting decisions for new technologies have been based on evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and decisions about managing waiting lists for elective surgery have been based on urgency rating scores. The fairness of priority-setting processes in surgical programs should be enhanced to permit all relevant information and values to be considered. The quality of these decisions can be improved by using an approach that captures and shares lessons from each priority-setting experience. The approach we propose in this paper- describe, evaluate, and improve using a leading conceptual framework for priority setting, called "accountability for reasonableness"-can be used by any surgical program to improve its priority setting, share lessons with others, and develop an evidence base for how these important health policy decisions should be made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12784149What 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.