ArticlePublic health challenges2023
Prioritization of patients for surgery in Canada: The case of hip and knee replacement surgeries in Newfoundland.
Article in Public health challenges, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prioritization of patients for surgery in Canada: The case of hip and knee replacement surgeries in Newfoundland.Public health challenges · 2023Article
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
Background: Single-entry models (SEM) improve wait times for hip and knee replacement, but little is known whether prioritization implemented in SEM can help meet the benchmarks for consolation/surgery. This study aimed to determine the impact of prioritization on receiving consultation and surgery within the benchmarks. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study for which two administration databases were linked. Logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of prioritization on receiving consultations and surgery within the benchmarks of 90 and 182 days, respectively, adjusting for patients' characteristics and preference for surgeon. Results: 1,967 patients were included in this study. The odds ratios of having consultation within 90 days for hip replacement patients in priorities 1 and 2 (high priority) were 57.24 (CI: 23.16-141.47) and 14.63 (CI: 6.44-33.25), respectively, compared with those in priority 3. For knee replacement, patients with higher priority were more likely to have consultation within 90 days. Although priority levels were not related to having surgery within 182 days for knee replacement, hip replacement patients with priority 1 (CI: 0.2-0.75) and 2 (CI: 0.16-0.54) were less likely to have surgery within 182 days, compared with those with priority 3. Conclusion: Patients with high priority levels were more likely to have consultation within 90 days for hip and knee replacements. SEM may not help have surgery within 182 days. Prioritization has no impact on receiving surgery within 182 days for knee replacement, but hip replacement patients with high priority were less likely to have surgery within 182 days.
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.