IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v23y2003i2p122-130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visual Acuity following Cataract Surgeries in Relation to Preoperative Appropriateness Ratings

Author

Listed:
  • Joanne K. Tobacman
  • Bridget Zimmerman
  • Paul Lee
  • Lee Hilborne
  • Hansjoerg Kolder
  • Robert H. Brook

Abstract

The authors initiated this study to consider if the formal preoperative assessment of appropriate or inappropriate utilization of cataract surgery by an expert panel could predict postoperative improvement or decline in visual acuity. They evaluated the association between ratings of appropriateness, as determined by the RAND-UCLA method, and measurements of postoperative visual acuity using Fisher’s exact tests for tables greater than 2 × 2. For 768 patients, improvement of at least 2 Snellen chart lines occurred in 89% of surgeries rated as appropriate or appropriate and crucial, 68% rated as uncertain, and 36% rated as inappropriate ( P

Suggested Citation

  • Joanne K. Tobacman & Bridget Zimmerman & Paul Lee & Lee Hilborne & Hansjoerg Kolder & Robert H. Brook, 2003. "Visual Acuity following Cataract Surgeries in Relation to Preoperative Appropriateness Ratings," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 122-130, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:2:p:122-130
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03251241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X03251241
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X03251241?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Park, R.E. & Fink, A. & Brook, R.H. & Chassin, M.R. & Kahn, K.L. & Merrick, N.J. & Kosecoff, J. & Solomon, D.H., 1986. "Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 76(7), pages 766-772.
    2. Joanne K. Tobacman & Ingrid U. Scott & Stacey T. Cyphert & M. Bridget Zimmerman, 2001. "Comparison of Appropriateness Ratings for Cataract Surgery between Convened and Mail-only Multidisciplinary Panels," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(6), pages 490-497, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Herrin, Jeph & Etchason, Jeff A. & Kahan, James P. & Brook, Robert H. & Ballard, David J., 1997. "Effect of panel composition on physician ratings of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: elucidating differences between multispecialty panel results and specialty society recommendat," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 67-81, October.
    2. Joseph Lipscomb & Giovanni Parmigiani & Vic Hasselblad, 1998. "Combining Expert Judgment by Hierarchical Modeling: An Application to Physician Staffing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(2), pages 149-161, February.
    3. McDonnell, Joseph & Meijler, Annejet & Kahan, James P. & Bernstein, Steven J. & Rigter, Henk, 1996. "Panellist consistency in the assessment of medical appropriateness," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 139-152, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:2:p:122-130. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.