ArticleEye (London, England)2019
A novel method to evaluate quality of care from the perspective of cataract patients.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate quality of care from patient's perspective following cataract surgery using a novel questionnaire and to assess validity of the survey in context with the identification of lacks in quality of care.
methodsAssessment of quality of care in 150 patients (150 eyes) who underwent cataract surgery in an Austrian clinical setting based on a novel "Quality of Care from Patient's perspective following Cataract Surgery" (QCPCS)-questionnaire including 10 subjective, 10 objective and 7 general health care criteria. Quality of care was graded according to importance (range: 1 = not important to 4 = extremely important) and frequency of occurrence (range: 1 = never to 4 = often, 0 = not applicable). Quality-impact indices (QI-respective grading by patient/4) were assessed.
resultsMean performance score was 3.84 (SD = 0.42, range: 1-4). Mean QI was 0.89 for subjective, 0.90 for objective and 0.96 for general health care criteria (p = 0.29). All-over skewness and coefficient of variation were -2.65 and 5.85 respectively. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's α = 0.75) confirming causal taxonomy of disease-specific and generic items.
conclusionA valid new method to reliably and holistically evaluate patient's satisfaction related to cataract surgery including a broad range of patient needs is presented, suitable to assess potential lacks in quality of health care in daily ophthalmological clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.