OBJECTIVE: As the demand for cataract surgery grows, patients in some health care systems are assigned to a waiting list. Several explicit priority tools have been developed. We compared 3 of these: the IRYSS-Cataract Priority Score (ICPS), Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research cataract priority system (CCPS), and Western Canada Waiting List project for cataract surgery (WCWL). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1723 consecutive patients awaiting cataract surgery at 5 hospitals. METHODS: The ICPS, CCPS, and WCWL were applied to these patients after the collection of data. The 3 prioritization systems were compared using correlation methods, 95% limits of agreement, and the kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Means and standard deviations for the different prioritization systems were 60.9 (22.2) for the ICPS, 35.7 (20.4) for the CCPS, and 25.7 (21.5) for the WCWL. Pearson's correlation coefficients were 0.56 between the ICPS and the CCPS, 0.62 between the WCWL and CCPS, and 0.71 between the ICPS and WCWL. The kappa value among them ranged from 0.13 to 0.40, and the intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.31 to 0.55. CONCLUSIONS: These 3 prioritization tools showed acceptable correlations but assigned significantly different point scores to similar scenarios. This may have consequences when using these tools for managing a waiting list for cataract extraction.
OBJECTIVE: As the demand for cataract surgery grows, patients in some health care systems are assigned to a waiting list. Several explicit priority tools have been developed. We compared 3 of these: the IRYSS-Cataract Priority Score (ICPS), Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research cataract priority system (CCPS), and Western Canada Waiting List project for cataract surgery (WCWL). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1723 consecutive patients awaiting cataract surgery at 5 hospitals. METHODS: The ICPS, CCPS, and WCWL were applied to these patients after the collection of data. The 3 prioritization systems were compared using correlation methods, 95% limits of agreement, and the kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Means and standard deviations for the different prioritization systems were 60.9 (22.2) for the ICPS, 35.7 (20.4) for the CCPS, and 25.7 (21.5) for the WCWL. Pearson's correlation coefficients were 0.56 between the ICPS and the CCPS, 0.62 between the WCWL and CCPS, and 0.71 between the ICPS and WCWL. The kappa value among them ranged from 0.13 to 0.40, and the intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.31 to 0.55. CONCLUSIONS: These 3 prioritization tools showed acceptable correlations but assigned significantly different point scores to similar scenarios. This may have consequences when using these tools for managing a waiting list for cataract extraction.
Authors: Daniel Pérez Fentes; Carlos Fernández Baltar; Juan Núñez Otero; Rita Diz Gil; Francisco Gude Sampedro Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2021-03-11