ArticleJournal of public health (Berlin, Germany)2026
Allocating operating room time in orthopaedic trauma: a survey in medical ethics.
Article in Journal of public health (Berlin, Germany), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Allocation of operating room time is a challenging dilemma that surgeons frequently confront. When deciding upon a daily caseload, the surgeon may consider clinical, logistical, and social factors. Although previous studies have outlined guiding principles, there is no universal algorithm for prioritizing surgical patients. Our study aims to learn which factors orthopaedic trauma surgeons use when determining case priority. Methods: A survey regarding the allocation of operating room time was administered to orthopaedic trauma surgeons from the community and members of the Southeastern Fracture Consortium. Questions included a list of characteristics and a series of theoretical case scenarios to be ranked according to perceived priority. Results: Of the participating surgeons, 92% practiced at an academic center and 89.7% at a level 1 trauma center. Of the case characteristics, "severity of orthopaedic problem" was most frequently ranked as most important versus "social pressure from family members," which was most frequently ranked as least important in case priority. The coefficient of concordance among respondents was 0.427 for individual case characteristics versus 0.287 for the theoretical scenarios. The average rate of agreement among respondents was 31.9 ± 19% for individual factors versus 36.3 ± 8.9% in the clinical vignettes. Conclusions: A consensus exists regarding severity of the presenting orthopaedic problem being the most important factor when considering case priority. The lower agreement in the clinical vignettes indicates a strong interplay between the multiple factors in a case. Survey commentary suggests that outside factors - training, experience, politics, the team available - also play a role in a surgeon's decision on case priority. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-024-02232-z.
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.