Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35281532›Full record

ReviewJournal of healthcare engineering2022

Appointment Scheduling Problem in Complexity Systems of the Healthcare Services: A Comprehensive Review.

Ali Ala, Feng Chen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
20.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ali AlaDepartment of Industrial Engineering & Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4364-0695
Feng ChenSino-US Global Logistics Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8656-7910
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive review of Appointment Scheduling (AS) in healthcare service while we propose appointment scheduling problems and various applications and solution approaches in healthcare systems. For this purpose, more than 150 scientific papers are critically reviewed. The literature and the articles are categorized based on several problem specifications, i.e., the flow of patients, patient preferences, and random arrival time and service. Several methods have been proposed to shorten the patient waiting time resulting in the shortest idle times in healthcare centers. Among existing modeling such as simulation models, mathematical optimization techniques, Markov chain, and artificial intelligence are the most practical approaches to optimizing or improving patient satisfaction in healthcare centers. In this study, various criteria are selected for structuring the recent literature dealing with outpatient scheduling problems at the strategic, tactical, or operational levels. Based on the review papers, some new overviews, problem settings, and hybrid modeling approaches are highlighted.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesArtificial IntelligenceComputer SimulationHumansMarkov ChainsPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID35281532
PMCPMC8913063
OpenAlexW4214951997

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.