ArticleBMC health services research2008
Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee arthroplasties and cataract surgery: Instruments validation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Determinants of demand for total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2012Pooled it
- Physician and patient concordance in reporting of appropriateness and prioritization for cataract surgery.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Effects of an educational audiovisual videodisc on patients' pre-operative expectations with total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized comparative study.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2013Trial
- Article
- Assessing the construct validity and responsiveness of Preference-Based Measures (PBMs) in cataract surgery patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Article
- EQ-5D-5L utilities per health states in Spanish population with knee or hip osteoarthritis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2019Observational
- Role and mechanism of nursing cooperation and tetramethylpyrazine application in post-operative pain in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Article
- More frequent requests for day-case cataract surgery : An impressive mind switch in the Austrian population within 7 years.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2017Article
- The Royal College of Ophthalmologists' Cataract Surgery Commissioning Guidance: executive summary.Eye (London, England) · 2016Article
- Who should be prioritized for renal transplantation?: Analysis of key stakeholder preferences using discrete choice experiments.BMC nephrology · 2012Article
- Unmet needs and waiting list prioritization for knee arthroplasty.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrioritisation instruments were developed for patients on waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasties (AI) and cataract surgery (CI). The aim of the study was to assess their convergent and discriminant validity and inter-observer reliability.
methodsMulticentre validation study which included orthopaedic surgeons and ophthalmologists from 10 hospitals. Participating doctors were asked to include all eligible patients placed in the waiting list for the procedures under study during the medical visit. Doctors assessed patients' priority through a visual analogue scale (VAS) and administered the prioritisation instrument. Information on socio-demographic data and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (HUI3, EQ-5D, WOMAC and VF-14) was obtained through a telephone interview with patients. The correlation coefficients between the prioritisation instrument score and VAS and HRQOL were calculated. For the reliability study a self-administered questionnaire, which included hypothetic patients' scenarios, was sent via postal mail to the doctors. The priority of these scenarios was assessed through the prioritisation instrument. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between doctors was calculated.
resultsCorrelations with VAS were strong for the AI (0.64, CI95%: 0.59-0.68) and for the CI (0.65, CI95%: 0.62-0.69), and moderate between the WOMAC and the AI (0.39, CI95%: 0.33-0.45) and the VF-14 and the CI (0.38, IC95%: 0.33-0.43). The results of the discriminant analysis were in general as expected. Inter-observer reliability was 0.79 (CI95%: 0.64-0.94) for the AI, and 0.79 (CI95%: 0.63-0.95) for the CI.
conclusionThe results show acceptable validity and reliability of the prioritisation instruments in establishing priority for surgery.
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.