Evidence map›Paper›PMID 1812631›Full record

ArticleThe Western journal of medicine1991

Charges for comprehensive obstetric care at teaching and nonteaching hospitals. A comparison.

G S Gordon, S E Sefcik, J P Lo Gerfo

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Western journal of medicine, 1991. 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

3 authors.

G S GordonDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
S E Sefcik
J P Lo Gerfo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compared total charges for obstetric care at a major teaching hospital and faculty group practice with those at 3 nonteaching centers in western Washington. The patients were all enrollees of an employee-based health maintenance organization. Charges were used as a proxy for costs and included all outpatient, inpatient, and physician charges. In the teaching system, patients were cared for by faculty and house staff; in the nonteaching settings, they received care from private physicians. No significant differences in total charges were found between the teaching and the nonteaching settings for all deliveries ($4,652 [N = 90] versus $4,530 [N = 335], P greater than .5). In the teaching setting, vaginal deliveries were slightly more expensive ($4,178 [n = 75] versus $3,768 [n = 250], P = .15), as were cesarean deliveries ($7,024 [n = 15] versus $6,771 [n = 85], P greater than .5). The rate of cesarean deliveries was lower in the teaching setting (17% versus 25%, P = .10), partially accounting for the similarity in total charges. The length of stay was similar in the teaching hospital (3.29 versus 3.14 days, P greater than .5). We conclude that the academic medical center as a total system of care can provide obstetric care as cost-effectively as nonteaching systems under the constraints of prepaid care.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionFees and ChargesFemaleHealth Maintenance OrganizationsHospitals, TeachingHumansLength of StayObstetricsObstetrics and Gynecology Department, HospitalPregnancyWashington

Identifiers

PMID1812631
PMCPMC1003109

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.