Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29569262›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2018

Application of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology to a Large Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Group Evaluating the Validity and Feasibility of Patient-Centered Standards in Geriatric Surgery.

Julia R Berian, Tracey L Baker, Ronnie A Rosenthal, JoAnn Coleman, Emily Finlayson, Mark R Katlic, Sandhya A Lagoo-Deenadayalan, Victoria L Tang, Thomas N Robinson, Clifford Y Ko and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

11 authors.

Julia R BerianDepartment of Surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0001-9754-3631
Tracey L BakerLivongo Health Inc., Chicago, IL.
Ronnie A RosenthalDepartment of Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
JoAnn ColemanDepartment of Surgery, LifeBridge Health, Baltimore, MD.
Emily FinlaysonDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Mark R KatlicDepartment of Surgery, LifeBridge Health, Baltimore, MD.
Sandhya A Lagoo-DeenadayalanDepartment of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Victoria L TangDepartment of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Thomas N RobinsonDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora, CO.
Clifford Y KoDivision of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL.
Marcia M RussellVeterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and Department of Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore (1) differences in validity and feasibility ratings for geriatric surgical standards across a diverse stakeholder group (surgeons vs. nonsurgeons, health care providers vs. nonproviders, including patient-family, advocacy, and regulatory agencies); (2) whether three multidisciplinary discussion subgroups would reach similar conclusions. DATA SOURCE/STUDY

settingPrimary data (ratings) were reported from 58 stakeholder organizations. STUDY

designAn adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology (RAM) process was conducted in May 2016. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsStakeholders self-administered ratings on paper, returned via mail (Round 1) and in-person (Round 2). PRINCIPAL

findingsIn Round 1, surgeons rated standards more critically (91.2 percent valid; 64.9 percent feasible) than nonsurgeons (100 percent valid; 87.0 percent feasible) but increased ratings in Round 2 (98.7 percent valid; 90.6 percent feasible), aligning with nonsurgeons (99.7 percent valid; 96.1 percent feasible). Three parallel subgroups rated validity at 96.8 percent (group 1), 100 percent (group 2), and 97.4 percent (group 3). Feasibility ratings were 76.9 percent (group 1), 96.1 percent (group 2), and 92.2 percent (group 3).

conclusionsThere are differences in validity and feasibility ratings by health professions, with surgeons rating standards more critically than nonsurgeons. However, three separate discussion subgroups rated a high proportion (96-100 percent) of standards as valid, indicating the RAM can be successfully applied to a large stakeholder group.

Indexed as

Stakeholder ParticipationAgedHealth Services for the AgedHumansPatient-Centered CareSurgical Procedures, OperativeUnited StatesDelphi methodsgeriatric surgeryRAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method

Identifiers

PMID29569262
PMCPMC6153160

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.