Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33708538›Full record

ArticleGland surgery2021

Exploring the lengthiest ambulatory breast surgery clinic appointments: is the patient the problem?

Daniel J Kagedan, Kazuaki Takabe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gland surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Daniel J KagedanDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Kazuaki TakabeDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.

Funding

Sphingosine-1 Phosphate in Breast Cancer Progression and LymphangiogenesisR01CA160688 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI TAKABE, KAZUAKI · 2012 to 2016
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160688
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProlonged outpatient clinic appointments can disrupt schedules, impacting patients and providers. We sought to define features of the longest ambulatory appointments in a breast surgery clinic, and to ascertain whether patients attending these appointments consistently have protracted appointments.

methodsA single-institution retrospective cohort study was conducted of breast surgery clinic patients, January 2017 to May 2019, and the longest 1% of appointments identified using a real-time patient tracking system. A primary chart review was performed, and data abstracted. Other appointments attended by these patients were identified, and the ratio of appointments >75th percentile duration (protracted appointments) to the total appointments during the study period was calculated, enabling comparison for patients with consistently protracted (ratio >50%)

resultsA total of 15,265 clinic appointments were identified, and the longest 148 (exceeding 244 minutes) analyzed. Median appointment length was 264 minutes (inter-quartile range: 253-290). 70% were new patient appointments, and 54% of patients underwent a test/investigation that day. A minority were obese (39%), smokers (41%), diagnosed with a psychiatric comorbidity (34%), had a genetic cancer syndrome (22%), or received unexpected news at their appointment (16%). Of 118 patients with multiple appointments, 26% had consistently protracted appointments and 74% sporadically protracted appointments.

conclusionsThe lengthiest appointments are usually newly diagnosed cancer patients. Only a minority of patients have consistently protracted appointments, implying that a patient's previously prolonged appointment may not predict future long appointments.

Indexed as

appointment lengthbreast cancerBreast surgeryclinic visitstime factors

Identifiers

PMID33708538
PMCPMC7944064

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.