Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26962773›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2016

Measuring Resource Utilization: A Systematic Review of Validated Self-Reported Questionnaires.

Laura E Leggett, Rachel G Khadaroo, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc, Diane L Lorenzetti, Heather Hanson, Adrian Wagg, Raj Padwal, Fiona Clement

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03862911 (Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic), which is not on this map. Cited by 71 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT03862911 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic (1-3 Metastases) Cancer (SABR-COMET-3)

TypeinterventionalSponsorBritish Columbia Cancer AgencyRan2019 to 2030Enrolled330ConditionsMetastatic TumorsArmspalliative radiotherapy, Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Quantifying Downstream Healthcare Utilization in Studies of Genomic Testing.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2020
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

8 authors.

Laura E LeggettFrom the Department Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, Calgary (LEL, JH-L, DLL, FC); Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton (DLL); O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Teaching Research and Wellness Building (LEL, DLL, FC); Alberta's Seniors Health Strategic Clinical Network, South Tower (JH-L, HH, AW); Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary (JH-L); Department of Medicine, University of Alberta (AW, RP); and Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery and Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton (RGK), Alberta, Canada.
Rachel G Khadaroo
Jayna Holroyd-Leduc
Diane L Lorenzetti
Heather Hanson
Adrian Wagg
Raj Padwal
Fiona Clement

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A variety of methods may be used to obtain costing data. Although administrative data are most commonly used, the data available in these datasets are often limited. An alternative method of obtaining costing is through self-reported questionnaires. Currently, there are no systematic reviews that summarize self-reported resource utilization instruments from the published literature.The aim of the study was to identify validated self-report healthcare resource use instruments and to map their attributes.A systematic review was conducted. The search identified articles using terms like "healthcare utilization" and "questionnaire." All abstracts and full texts were considered in duplicate. For inclusion, studies had to assess the validity of a self-reported resource use questionnaire, to report original data, include adult populations, and the questionnaire had to be publically available. Data such as type of resource utilization assessed by each questionnaire, and validation findings were extracted from each study.In all, 2343 unique citations were retrieved; 2297 were excluded during abstract review. Forty-six studies were reviewed in full text, and 15 studies were included in this systematic review. Six assessed resource utilization of patients with chronic conditions; 5 assessed mental health service utilization; 3 assessed resource utilization by a general population; and 1 assessed utilization in older populations. The most frequently measured resources included visits to general practitioners and inpatient stays; nonmedical resources were least frequently measured. Self-reported questionnaires on resource utilization had good agreement with administrative data, although, visits to general practitioners, outpatient days, and nurse visits had poorer agreement.Self-reported questionnaires are a valid method of collecting data on healthcare resource utilization.

Indexed as

Health ResourcesSelf ReportAdultAgedChronic DiseaseFemaleHealth Care RationingHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26962773
PMCPMC4998854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.