Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35127059›Full record

ArticleHealth systems (Basingstoke, England)2022

"What's the evidence?"-Towards more empirical evaluations of the impact of OR interventions in healthcare.

Guillaume Lamé, Sonya Crowe, Matthew Barclay

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health systems (Basingstoke, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Guillaume LaméThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9514-1890
Sonya CroweClinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1882-5476
Matthew BarclayThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1148-1922
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite an increasing number of papers reporting applications of operational research (OR) to problems in healthcare, there remains little empirical evidence of OR improving healthcare delivery in practice. Without such evidence it is harder both to justify the usefulness of OR to a healthcare audience and to learn and continuously improve our approaches. To progress, we need to build the evidence-base on whether and how OR improves healthcare delivery through careful empirical evaluation. This position paper reviews evaluation standards in healthcare improvement research and dispels some common myths about evaluation. It highlights the current lack of robust evaluation of healthcare OR and makes the case for addressing this. It then proposes possible ways for building better empirical evaluations of OR interventions in healthcare.

Indexed as

healthcare Improvement ResearchHealth Quality and Evaluationimpact

Identifiers

PMID35127059
PMCPMC8812794
OpenAlexW3107976482

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.