ArticlePloS one2023
Evaluation of the medically necessary, time sensitive triage score during and beyond the local COVID-19 pandemic in the Gynaecologic Oncology Unit of a tertiary hospital in South Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe main objective of this study was to evaluate the Medically Necessary Time Sensitive (MeNTS) scoring system in triaging gynaecologic oncologic surgery during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a retrospective cross-sectional study including 209 patients who either had surgery (151) or surgery postponed (58) between the 26th March and 30th September 2020 in an academic hospital in South Africa. The MeNTS score was used to independently score each patient three times by two observers.
resultsThe mean age of the participants was 46.6 ± 15 years and the cumulative mean MeNTS score was 51.0 ± 5.1. Over two-thirds of the cases had surgery. There was no significant difference between the first and second observers' cumulative scores, 51.0 vs 51.1 (p 0.77). The cumulative score among those who had surgery was significantly lower than that for those whose surgeries were postponed, 49.8 vs 54.1 (p <0.0001). The intra-observer and inter-observer reliability were 0.78 and 0.74 respectively. After adjusting for confounding variables, those with low cumulative MeNTS scores were about 5 times more likely to have surgery than those with high scores (Adj. OR = 4.67, 95% CI: 1.92-11.4, p <0.001. Patients with malignant diagnosis were also 5 times more likely to be operated than those with benign diagnosis (Adj. OR = 5.03, 95% CI: 1.73-14.6, p <0.001. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.85 suggesting an excellent discriminatory power between those who were operated and those who were postponed.
conclusionThe study provided some insight into the potential usefulness of MeNTS score in prioritizing patients for surgery in gynaecologic oncologic sub-specialty. The score performed well across a range of gynaecologic conditions and procedures with good intra-observer and inter-observer consistency and reliability. This is a prioritization tool that is dynamically adaptable to accommodate changes in resources availability and operating theatre capacity.
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.