ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2025
[Prioritized appointment allocation in new patients, what is really decisive? : Comparative analysis of manual appointment allocation with automated and AI-assisted approaches].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe timely allocation of appointments for new patients is a daily challenge in rheumatological practice, which can be supported by digital solutions. The question is to find the simplest and most effective possible method for prioritization when allocating appointments.
methodsUsing a registration form for new patients, standardized symptoms and laboratory results were collated. After reviewing this information by a medical specialist the allocation of appointments was carried out in three categories: a) < 6 weeks, b) 6 weeks up to 3 months and c) > 3 months. The waiting time between the time of registration and the presentation appointment was calculated and compared between patients with and without a diagnosis of an inflammatory rheumatic disease (IRD). In addition a decision tree (DT), a method taken from the field of supervised learning within artificial intelligence (AI), was established and the resulting classification was compared with respect to the accuracy and calculated saving in waiting time.
resultsIn this study 800 appointments between 2020 and 2023 (including 555 women, 69.4%, median age 53 years, interquartile range, IQR 39-63 years) were analyzed. An IRD could be confirmed in 409 (51.1%) cases with a waiting time of 58 vs. 93 days for non-IRD cases (-38%, p < 0.01). An AI-based stratification resulted in an accuracy of 67% for IRD and a predicted saving of 19% waiting time. The accuracy increased up to 78% with a time saving for IRD cases of up to 31%, when all basic laboratory results were known. Simplified algorithms, e.g., stratification by the use of laboratory findings alone, resulted in a lower accuracy and time savings.
conclusionManual allocation of appointments by a medical specialist is effective and significantly reduces the waiting times for patients with IRD. An automated categorization can lead to a reduction in waiting times for appointments when taking complete laboratory results and a lower sensitivity into consideration.
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.