ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2007
Factors influencing waiting times for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Management of symptomatic cholelithiasis: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Emergency cholecystectomy: risk factors and impact of delay on electively booked patients, a 5-year experience of a tertiary care center.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- The burden of waiting: wait times for pediatric surgical procedures in Quebec and compliance with national benchmarks.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2021Article
- What are wait times to see a specialist? an analysis of 26,942 referrals in southwestern Ontario.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2012Article
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
introductionHealth Canada states that waiting list information and management systems in Canada are woefully inadequate, especially for elective surgical procedures. Understanding the reasons for waiting is paramount to achieving fairness and equity. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of demographic and clinical factors and surgeon volume on waiting times for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
methodsWe comprehensively applied a wait-list database for all surgical procedures across a division of general surgery and performed a chart review of all patients undergoing LC in 2002 to collect additional demographic and clinical data. We excluded patients undergoing LC on an emergent basis or as a secondary procedure. For each patient, we calculated 2 time intervals: time from the receipt of consult to the surgical consult (interval A) and time from the surgical consult to the LC (interval B). Surgeons were categorized a priori into low- and high-volume groups, based on the median number of procedures they had performed. All analyses examining waiting times were performed with nonparametric methods.
resultsThe study cohort included 294 patients; most (94.6%) underwent LC for biliary colic. The median waiting times for interval A and interval B were 22 days and 50 days, respectively. No associations were identified between any of the examined waiting times, sex, diagnosis or Charlston Comorbidity Index. High surgeon volume was associated with longer waiting times for interval A (median 26 v. 19 d; p=0.04) and interval B (median 58 v. 35 d; p=0.003) and was also associated with a greater number of episodes of biliary colic (2.7 v. 2.0; p=0.03).
conclusionThere is significant variability in specific waiting times for LC, which appears to be associated with surgeon volume. Better prioritization of patients undergoing nonemergent LC is required to improve patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17391614PMC2384253What 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.