Outcomes of Pediatric Appendicitis An International Comparison of the United States and Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
he United States and Canada have very different health care delivery systems.The United States has a multipayer system consisting of a large number of private insurers and multiple public programs.In 2011, 48.6 million people in the United States, including approximately 9 million children, were uninsured, representing 15.7% of the population. 1 Canada provides universal, publicly funded, single-payer health insurance to all citizens and legal residents.Waits for evaluation and treatment of a variety of medical conditions are part of the Canadian medical landscape.In 2011, 2.8% of all Canadians waited for an estimated 941 321 procedures. 2 Beyond insurance coverage and waiting times, the differences between the United States and Canada impact multiple aspects of health care, including physician and hospital reimbursement, administrative overhead, billing prac-tices, medical malpractice, and availability of medical resources.Patients, as well as physicians, are profoundly affected by all of these areas.Several previous studies have looked at outcome differences between the United States and Canada for a variety of diseases, both acute and chronic.A systematic review of 38 studies showed that most favored Canada or showed no differences between the 2 countries.3 Most of these studies analyzed adult diseases or combined adult and pediatric populations.3 To our knowledge, no previous studies have specifically looked at pediatric surgical outcomes.Appendicitis is the most common pediatric surgical emergency, and appendectomy is the most common urgent pediatric surgical operation.The outcomes of appendicitis are largely dependent on the severity of the disease at presenta-IMPORTANCE Pediatric appendicitis outcomes have been shown to be influenced by several patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors.However, to our knowledge, no prior studies have investigated the effect of health care systems on outcomes.OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that the outcomes of children with appendicitis are better in the Canadian single-payer universal health care system than in the US multipayer system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA population-based comparison of outcomes using the US Kids' Inpatient Database and the Canadian Discharge Abstract Database was performed.Subanalyses by age group, US insurance status, and severity of appendicitis (nonperforated or perforated) were also performed.We included patients younger than 18 years coded for nonincidental, urgent appendectomy in the 2006 and 2009 Kids' Inpatient Database (78 625) and 2004 to 2010 Discharge Abstract Database (41 492). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPerforation rate, normal appendix rate, and length of hospital stay. RESULTSCanadian patients had higher rates of normal appendix (6.3% vs 4.3%; P < .001)and perforated appendicitis (27.3% vs 26.7%; P = .04).The Canadian perforation rate fell in the middle between privately insured (24.1%) and publicly insured or noninsured US patients (30.4% and 31.2%,respectively).The Canadian perforation rate was lower in the 0-to 5-year age group (47.7% vs 52.3%; P < .001)and higher in the 12-to 17-year age group (24.7% vs 21.8%; P < .001)vs US patients.In Canada, hospital stay was longer after simple appendicitis (mean [SD], 2.0 [1.2] vs 1.7 [1.2] days; P < .001)and shorter after perforated appendicitis (mean [SD], 4.8 [3.6] vs 5.3 [3.7] days; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEDifferences in outcomes of pediatric appendicitis between the United States and Canada are influenced by age and US insurance status.These differences are relevant to health policy decisions in both nations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».