Validity of Newly Developed Appropriateness Criteria for Cataract Surgery

Ophthalmology

Volumn 116, Issue 3, 2009, Pages

  Quintana, Jose M ^a   Escobar, Antonio ^b   Bilbao, Amaia ^c   Blasco, Juan A ^d   Lacalle, Juan R ^e   Bare, Marisa ^f   Begiristain, Jose M ^g  

^a HOSPITAL DE GALDAKAO   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL DE BASURTO   (Spain)

^c Fundación Vasca de Innovación e Investigación Sanitarias   (Spain)

^d Agencia Lain Entralgo   (Spain)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE   (Spain)

^f Unidad de Epidemiologia Clinica   (Spain)

^g Gobierno Vasco   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CATARACT; CATARACT EXTRACTION; EYE CARE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PHACOEMULSIFICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITY OF LIFE; SHORT FORM 36; TEACHING HOSPITAL; VALIDITY; VISION;

EID: 61449197710     PISSN: 01616420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.07.017     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group. Prevalence of cataract and pseudophakia/aphakia among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 122 (2004) 487-494
2. Goldzweig C.L., Mittman B.S., Carter G.M., et al. Variations in cataract extraction rates in Medicare prepaid and fee-for-service settings. JAMA 277 (1997) 1765-1768
3. Kellie S.E., and Kelly J.T. Medicare Peer Review Organization preprocedure review criteria: an analysis of criteria for three procedures. JAMA 265 (1991) 1265-1270
4. Norregaard J.C., Schein O.D., Anderson G.F., et al. International variation in ophthalmologic management of patients with cataracts: results from the International Cataract Surgery Outcomes Study. Arch Ophthalmol 115 (1997) 399-403
5. Brook R.H., Chassin M.R., Fink A., et al. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2 (1986) 53-63
6. Kahan J.P., Park R.E., Leape L.L., et al. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med Care 34 (1996) 512-523
7. Tobacman J.K., Lee P., Zimmerman B., et al. Assessment of appropriateness of cataract surgery at ten academic medical centers in 1990. Ophthalmology 103 (1996) 207-215
8. Lundstrom M., Barry P., Leite E., et al. 1998 European Cataract Outcome Study: report from the European Cataract Outcome Study Group. J Cataract Refract Surg 27 (2001) 1176-1184
9. Norregaard J.C., Bernth-Petersen P., Alonso J., et al. Visual functional outcomes of cataract surgery in the United States, Canada, Denmark, and Spain: report of the International Cataract Surgery Outcomes Study. J Cataract Refract Surg 29 (2003) 2135-2142
10. Steinberg E.P., Tielsch J.M., Schein O.D., et al. National study of cataract surgery outcomes: variation in 4-month postoperative outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures. Ophthalmology 101 (1994) 1131-1140
11. Jaeschke R., Singer J., and Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10 (1989) 407-415
12. Quintana J.M., Escobar A., and Arostegui I. Development of appropriateness explicit criteria for cataract extraction by phacoemulsification. BMC Health Serv Res [serial online] 6 (2006) 23. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/6/23 Accessed July 26, 2008
13. Kahan J.P., Bernstein S.J., Leape L.L., et al. Measuring the necessity of medical procedures. Med Care 32 (1994) 357-365
14. Ware Jr. J.E., and Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30 (1992) 473-483
15. Steinberg E.P., Tielsch J.M., Schein O.D., et al. The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 112 (1994) 630-638
16. Alonso J., Prieto L., and Anto J.M. The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. [in Spanish]. Med Clin (Barc) 104 (1995) 771-776
17. Cassard S.D., Patrick D.L., Damiano A.M., et al. Reproducibility and responsiveness of the VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataracts. Arch Ophthalmol 113 (1995) 1508-1513
18. Alonso J., Espallargues M., Andersen T.F., et al. International applicability of the VF-14: an index of visual function in patients with cataracts. Ophthalmology 104 (1997) 799-807
19. Hays R.D., and Woolley J.M. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?. Pharmacoeconomics 18 (2000) 419-423
20. Schmitt J.S., and Di Fabio R.P. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004) 1008-1018
21. Wyrwich K.W., Tierney W.M., and Wolinsky F.D. Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 11 (2002) 1-7
22. Cleveland W.S. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc 74 (1979) 829-836
23. Tobacman J.K., Zimmerman B., Lee P., et al. Visual acuity following cataract surgeries in relation to preoperative appropriateness ratings. Med Decis Making 23 (2003) 122-130
24. Rosen P.N., Kaplan R.M., and David K. Measuring outcomes of cataract surgery using the Quality of Well-Being Scale and VF-14 Visual Function Index. J Cataract Refract Surg 31 (2005) 369-378