Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23768163›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2013

Evaluation of an integrated system for classification, assessment and comparison of services for long-term care in Europe: the eDESDE-LTC study.

Luis Salvador-Carulla, Javier Alvarez-Galvez, Cristina Romero, Mencia R Gutiérrez-Colosía, Germain Weber, David McDaid, Hristo Dimitrov, Lilijana Sprah, Birgitte Kalseth, Giuseppe Tibaldi and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Unit Costs in Health Economic Evaluations: Quo Vadis, Austria?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  20. Review
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

14 authors.

Luis Salvador-CarullaCentre for Disability Research and Policy Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, 75 East St Lidcombe, Sydney, NSW 2141, Australia. luis.salvador-carulla@sydney.edu.au
Javier Alvarez-Galvez
Cristina Romero
Mencia R Gutiérrez-Colosía
Germain Weber
David McDaid
Hristo Dimitrov
Lilijana Sprah
Birgitte Kalseth
Giuseppe Tibaldi
Jose A Salinas-Perez
Carolina Lagares-Franco
Maria Teresa Romá-Ferri
Sonia Johnson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe harmonization of European health systems brings with it a need for tools to allow the standardized collection of information about medical care. A common coding system and standards for the description of services are needed to allow local data to be incorporated into evidence-informed policy, and to permit equity and mobility to be assessed. The aim of this project has been to design such a classification and a related tool for the coding of services for Long Term Care (DESDE-LTC), based on the European Service Mapping Schedule (ESMS).

methodsThe development of DESDE-LTC followed an iterative process using nominal groups in 6 European countries. 54 researchers and stakeholders in health and social services contributed to this process. In order to classify services, we use the minimal organization unit or "Basic Stable Input of Care" (BSIC), coded by its principal function or "Main Type of Care" (MTC). The evaluation of the tool included an analysis of feasibility, consistency, ontology, inter-rater reliability, Boolean Factor Analysis, and a preliminary impact analysis (screening, scoping and appraisal).

resultsDESDE-LTC includes an alpha-numerical coding system, a glossary and an assessment instrument for mapping and counting LTC. It shows high feasibility, consistency, inter-rater reliability and face, content and construct validity. DESDE-LTC is ontologically consistent. It is regarded by experts as useful and relevant for evidence-informed decision making.

conclusionDESDE-LTC contributes to establishing a common terminology, taxonomy and coding of LTC services in a European context, and a standard procedure for data collection and international comparison.

Indexed as

Clinical CodingDatabases, FactualDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEuropeHumansLong-Term Care

Identifiers

PMID23768163
PMCPMC3685525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.