Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20238347›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs.

Thomas Rotter, Leigh Kinsman, Erica James, Andreas Machotta, Holger Gothe, Jon Willis, Pamela Snow, Joachim Kugler

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 305 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
305citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–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

305 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Organisation of health services for preventing and treating pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

245 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Thomas RotterDepartment of Public Health, Dresden Medical School, University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany, D-01307.
Leigh Kinsman
Erica James
Andreas Machotta
Holger Gothe
Jon Willis
Pamela Snow
Joachim Kugler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical pathways are structured multidisciplinary care plans used by health services to detail essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem. They aim to link evidence to practice and optimise clinical outcomes whilst maximising clinical efficiency.

objectivesTo assess the effect of clinical pathways on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, NHS EED and Global Health. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted relevant professional organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies comparing stand alone clinical pathways with usual care as well as clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles to assess eligibility and methodological quality. Studies were grouped into those comparing clinical pathways with usual care and those comparing clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care. MAIN

resultsTwenty-seven studies involving 11,398 participants met the eligibility and study quality criteria for inclusion. Twenty studies compared stand alone clinical pathways with usual care. These studies indicated a reduction in in-hospital complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.94) and improved documentation (OR 13.65: 95%CI 5.38 to 34.64). There was no evidence of differences in readmission to hospital or in-hospital mortality. Length of stay was the most commonly employed outcome measure with most studies reporting significant reductions. A decrease in hospital costs/ charges was also observed, ranging from WMD +261 US$ favouring usual care to WMD -4919 US$ favouring clinical pathways (in US$ dollar standardized to the year 2000). Considerable heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis of length of stay and hospital cost results. An assessment of whether lower hospital costs contributed to cost shifting to another health sector was not undertaken.Seven studies compared clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care. No evidence of differences were found between intervention and control groups. AUTHORS'

conclusionsClinical pathways are associated with reduced in-hospital complications and improved documentation without negatively impacting on length of stay and hospital costs.

Indexed as

Critical PathwaysHospital CostsLength of StayOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareProfessional PracticeHumans

Identifiers

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.