ArticleBMC health services research2006
Explicit criteria for prioritization of cataract surgery.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Expert consensus on the management of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) receiving crizanlizumab: a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel.Annals of hematology · 2024Review
- Clinical diagnosis and management of Demodex blepharitis: the Demodex Expert Panel on Treatment and Eyelid Health (DEPTH).Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Delphi Panel Consensus Regarding Current Clinical Practice Management Options forClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Expert consensus on the identification, diagnosis, and treatment of neurotrophic keratopathy.BMC ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee arthroplasties and cataract surgery: Instruments validation.BMC health services research · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.