Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16512893›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2006

Explicit criteria for prioritization of cataract surgery.

José Ma Quintana, Antonio Escobar, Amaia Bilbao, IRYSS-Appropriateness Cataract Group

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

4 authors.

José Ma QuintanaUnidad de Investigación, Hospital de Galdakao, Barrio Labeaga s/n, 48960 Galdakao, Vizcaya, Spain. jmquinta@hgda.osakidetza.net
Antonio Escobar
Amaia Bilbao
IRYSS-Appropriateness Cataract Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsensus techniques have been used previously to create explicit criteria to prioritize cataract extraction; however, the appropriateness of the intervention was not included explicitly in previous studies. We developed a prioritization tool for cataract extraction according to the RAND method.

methodsCriteria were developed using a modified Delphi panel judgment process. A panel of 11 ophthalmologists was assembled. Ratings were analyzed regarding the level of agreement among panelists. We studied the effect of all variables on the final panel score using general linear and logistic regression models. Priority scoring systems were developed by means of optimal scaling and general linear models. The explicit criteria developed were summarized by means of regression tree analysis.

resultsEight variables were considered to create the indications. Of the 310 indications that the panel evaluated, 22.6% were considered high priority, 52.3% intermediate priority, and 25.2% low priority. Agreement was reached for 31.9% of the indications and disagreement for 0.3%. Logistic regression and general linear models showed that the preoperative visual acuity of the cataractous eye, visual function, and anticipated visual acuity postoperatively were the most influential variables. Alternative and simple scoring systems were obtained by optimal scaling and general linear models where the previous variables were also the most important. The decision tree also shows the importance of the previous variables and the appropriateness of the intervention.

conclusionOur results showed acceptable validity as an evaluation and management tool for prioritizing cataract extraction. It also provides easy algorithms for use in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsHealth PrioritiesActivities of Daily LivingAlgorithmsCataractCataract ExtractionContraindicationsDecision TreesDelphi TechniqueDiabetic RetinopathyHumansLogistic ModelsOphthalmologyPrognosisSpainTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID16512893
PMCPMC1409778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.