SynthesisPloS one2021
Patient prioritisation methods to shorten waiting times for elective surgery: A systematic review of how to improve access to surgery.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- The integration of human and non-human actors to advance healthcare delivery: unpacking the role of actor-network theory, a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Ethical Management of Elective Surgery Waiting Lists : A Framework of Clinicians' Values in Action.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Article
- Systematic literature review on biopsychosocial factors in the surgical waiting list.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Review
- Mapping strategies for reducing inequalities in adult elective surgical care in the United Kingdom: a living scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- A hybrid AHP and K-means model for biopsychosocial surgical prioritization: validation in a high-complexity ENT unit.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- A parallel private-pay system will worsen access to publicly funded surgery.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Article
- Surgical delays between indication and operating room access in patients undergoing glaucoma filtration surgery.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Association of an integrated management strategy with operating room efficiency, turnover time, and satisfaction: a retrospective before-after study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Preoperative waiting time and no-show risk in day surgery: a large-scale cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Impact of Telehealth Exercise Prehabilitation on Cardiometabolic Health in Bariatric Surgery Candidates: Protocol for the BARI-Prehab Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Data-Driven Strategies in Orthopaedics: Optimizing Surgical Precision and Patient Outcomes.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Gigantomastia: Advancing a Preference Score System to Enhance Care Quality and Life Standards.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- The Opportunity for Canada and Australia to Learn From One Another's Health Systems.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2025Article
- Cost Utility Modeling of Reducing Waiting Times for Elective Surgical Interventions: Case Study of Egyptian Initiative.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Sociodemographic Disparities in Rectal Cancer Outcomes within Academic Cancer Centers.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Economic Benefits of Reduced Waiting Times for Elective Surgeries: A Systematic Literature Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Hidden costs of surgical complications: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2025Article
- Increase in (semi-) acute non-instrumented lumbar spine surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- The cost of keeping patients waiting: retrospective treatment-control study of additional healthcare utilisation for UK patients awaiting elective treatment.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcern about long waiting times for elective surgeries is not a recent phenomenon, but it has been heightened by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated measures. One way to alleviate the problem might be to use prioritisation methods for patients on the waiting list and a wide range of research is available on such methods. However, significant variations and inconsistencies have been reported in prioritisation protocols from various specialties, institutions, and health systems. To bridge the evidence gap in existing literature, this comprehensive systematic review will synthesise global evidence on policy strategies with a unique insight to patient prioritisation methods to reduce waiting times for elective surgeries. This will provide evidence that might help with the tremendous burden of surgical disease that is now apparent in many countries because of operations that were delayed or cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and inform policy for sustainable healthcare management systems.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, with our most recent searches in January 2020. Articles published after 2013 on major elective surgery lists of adult patients were eligible, but cancer and cancer-related surgeries were excluded. Both randomised and non-randomised studies were eligible and the quality of studies was assessed with ROBINS-I and CASP tools. We registered the review in PROSPERO (CRD42019158455) and reported it in accordance with the PRISMA statement.
resultsThe electronic search in five bibliographic databases yielded 7543 records (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane) and 17 eligible articles were identified in the screening. There were four quasi-experimental studies, 11 observational studies and two systematic reviews. These demonstrated moderate to low risk of bias in their research methods. Three studies tested generic approaches using common prioritisation systems for all elective surgeries in common. The other studies assessed specific prioritisation approaches for re-ordering the waiting list for a particular surgical specialty.
conclusionsExplicit prioritisation tools with a standardised scoring system based on clear evidence-based criteria are likely to reduce waiting times and improve equitable access to health care. Multiple attributes need to be considered in defining a fair prioritisation system to overcome limitations with local variations and discriminations. Collating evidence from a diverse body of research provides a single framework to improve the quality and efficiency of elective surgical care provision in a variety of health settings. Universal prioritisation tools with vertical and horizontal equity would help with re-ordering patients on waiting lists for elective surgery and reduce waiting times.
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.