ArticleCureus2024
Unveiling Equitable Surgical Prioritization: Insights From a Comprehensive Analysis Using the Medically Necessary and Time-Sensitive (MeNTS) Scoring System.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complexity and Barriers to Vision Care: A Narrative Review Informed by a Mobile Eye Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study addresses the intricate landscape of racial disparities in healthcare delivery, with a specific focus on surgical procedures. The concern was accentuated by the challenges posed during the COVID-19 pandemic when resources became scarce. Recognizing the potential impact of provider bias in medical decision-making, the American College of Surgeons introduced the Medically Necessary and Time-Sensitive (MeNTS) scoring system. This methodology aims to address procedures that, while not emergent, are deemed medically necessary and time-sensitive. This study analyzed whether using this scoring system decreased racial disparities between patients receiving surgery during the pandemic. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using Electronic Medical Records from June 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. We analyzed variations in MeNTS scores and time to surgery based on racial and ethnic backgrounds using bivariate and multivariate analyses.
resultsThe analysis included 2,997 patients. Of these, 1,442 (42.84%) were Hispanic participants, 1,282 (38.09%) were non-Hispanic participants, and 642 (19.07%) were participants of other specified ethnic backgrounds. The racial composition comprised 2,955 (87.79%) White participants, 98 (2.91%) Asian participants, 50 (1.49%) African American participants, and 72 (2.14%) Alaska Native or American Indian participants. No significant differences in mean days to surgery or MeNTS scores were observed across racial and ethnic groups (Hispanic participants = 76.62 vs. non-Hispanic participants = 78.82,
conclusionsThis comprehensive study utilizing the MeNTS scoring system reveals an absence of statistically significant racial disparities in surgical prioritization. These findings contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse surrounding equitable healthcare practices and emphasize the potential efficacy of standardized scoring systems in mitigating biases in medical decision-making.
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.