ArticleHealthcare policy = Politiques de sante2008
Evaluation of booking systems for elective surgery using simulation experiments.
Article in Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revisiting the concept of urgency in surgical prioritization and addressing backlogs in elective surgery provision.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022Article
- Communication With Patients Before an Operation: Their Preferences on Method of Communication.Cureus · 2020Article
- Reasons Behind Patients Defaulting from Elective Pediatric Urology Procedures at a Tertiary Private Teaching Hospital in South India.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared two methods of booking elective surgery - booking from wait lists and pre-booking surgery dates at the time of decision to operate - in terms of cancellations of elective procedures and time to surgery.
methodsThe authors conducted simulation experiments with group randomized design, in which the unit of allocation was the hospital and the units of analysis were both the hospital and the patient.
resultsIn the case of pre-booking, cancellation of high-priority elective procedures was only one-third as likely as it was in the case of booking from wait lists (odds ratio 0.35; 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.68). After adjustment for hospital and patient factors, the weekly likelihood that patients on the wait list had their operation was about 20% higher for medium-priority procedures (OR 1.21; CI 1.18-1.24) after pre-booking surgery dates.
conclusionThe findings suggest that redesigning booking processes may improve the performance of surgical services.
Identifiers
19377333PMC2645167W2065064885What 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.