Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33685475›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

An analytical approach to aggregate patient inflows to a simulation model over the radiotherapy process.

Jesper Lindberg, Paul Holmström, Stefan Hallberg, Thomas Björk-Eriksson, Caroline E Olsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Jesper LindbergDepartment of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden. jesper.lindberg@gu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9993-8642
Paul HolmströmDepartment of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Stefan HallbergRegional Cancer Centre West, Western Sweden Healthcare Region, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Thomas Björk-ErikssonRegional Cancer Centre West, Western Sweden Healthcare Region, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Caroline E OlssonDepartment of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

ALF Western Sweden Healthcare region ALFGBG-720111Stiftelsen Assar Gabrielssons Fond FB 18-41Vetenskapsrådet 2017-01735
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn meeting input data requirements for a system dynamics (SD) model simulating the radiotherapy (RT) process, the number of patient care pathways (RT workflows) needs to be kept low to simplify the model without affecting the overall performance. A large RT department can have more than 100 workflows, which results in a complex model structure if each is to be handled separately. Here we investigated effects on model performance by reducing the number of workflows for a model of the preparatory steps of the RT process.

methodsWe created a SD model sub-structure capturing the preparatory RT process. Real data for patients treated in 2015-2016 at a modern RT department in Sweden were used. RT workflow similarity was quantified by averaged pairwise utilization rate differences (%) and the size of corresponding correlation coefficients (r). Grouping of RT workflows was determined using two accepted strategies (80/20 Pareto rule; merging all data into one group) and a customized algorithm with r≥0.75:0.05:0.95 as criteria for group inclusion by two strategies (A1 and A2). Number of waiting patients for each grouping strategy were compared to the reference of all workflows handled separately.

resultsThere were 128 RT workflows for 3209 patients during the studied period. The 80/20 Pareto rule resulted in 14/8/21 groups for curative/palliative/disregarding treatment intent. Correspondingly, A1 and A2 resulted in 7-40/≤4-36/7-82 groups depending on r cutoff. Results for the Pareto rule and A2 at r≥85 were comparable to the reference.

conclusionsThe performance of a simulation model over the RT process will depend on the grouping strategy of patient input data. Either the Pareto rule or the grouping of patients by resource use can be expected to better reflect overall departmental effects to various changes than when merging all data into one group. Our proposed approach to identify groups based on similarity in resource use can potentially be used in any setting with variable incoming flows of objects which go through a multi-step process comparable to RT where the aim is to reduce the complexity of associated model structures without compromising with overall performance.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPalliative CareComputer SimulationHumansSwedenWorkflowData input setPatient inflowRadiotherapySimulationSystem dynamics

Identifiers

PMID33685475
PMCPMC7938525

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.