MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2329577271 · doi:10.1016/j.mgyf.2016.01.008

Utilidad de las reglas de Ottawa para el tobillo y el medio pie en Atención Primaria (II): análisis económico

2016· article· es· W2329577271 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
José Manuel Toscano Pardo, Yalenne Alonso Pérez, Juana Melián Díaz

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina General y de Familia · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesMedicineGynecologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demostrar la capacidad de las reglas de Ottawa (RO) en el tobillo y el medio pie en Atención Primaria para reducir el número de radiografías innecesarias y estimar, haciendo una proyección de resultados, el ahorro económico que de su implementación se deriva. Estudio descriptivo y transversal sobre el que se realiza una estimación prospectiva de los costes en una muestra de un centro de salud de ámbito urbano. Se seleccionó de forma consecutiva a 72 pacientes desde el 1 de diciembre de 2013 hasta el 30 de abril de 2014 con lesión traumática aguda del tobillo o del medio pie, que cumplían los criterios de inclusión. Se aplicaron las RO y se realizaron radiografías independientemente del resultado. Se calculó el ahorro de costes totales atendiendo al número de radiografías innecesarias y al tiempo de asistencia empleado que hubiera sido evitado, y el ahorro medio por episodio y paciente. En el tiempo de estudio se obtuvo un ahorro de 1.290 € y 16 h de tiempo de atención evitables (en un año 8.690 € y 110 h) y, extrapolando los datos a la Comunidad Autónoma Canaria, se obtendría un ahorro neto de 55.7661 € y 7.054 h evitables. Las RO resultan útiles para seleccionar pacientes con esta dolencia que no necesitan estudio radiográfico, lo que supone un 68 % de radiografías evitables, con el consiguiente ahorro económico que ello supone. To demonstrate the ability of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) for Ankle and Mid Foot trauma in lowering the number of unnecessary radiographs in Primary Care and make a projection of the economic savings after implementation. A descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted in which a prospective estimate of the costs was carried out on a sample of 72 patients with ankle and middle foot traumas who met the inclusion criteria, and enrolled consecutively in a Primary Care setting from 1 December 2013 to 30 April 2014. The OAR was applied and X-rays taken on all patients regardless of the outcomes. Total cost savings were calculated according to the number of avoidable X-rays, time of attendance, and the mean economic savings per episode per patient. In the time period of the study, a financial saving of €1,290 was obtained, and 16 hours were saved. Over a period of one year, the savings were €8,690 and 110 hours were saved, and extrapolating the data to the Autonomous Community of Canarias a net saving of €557,661 and 7,054 hours would be achieved. OARs are valid and useful in Primary Care to select patients with Acute Ankle Trauma (AAT) and Acute MidFoot Trauma (AMFT) who do not need radiographs, which would assume a reduction of 68% in avoidable X-rays, with the resulting economic savings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicina General y de Familia→Same topicSports injuries and prevention→French-language works237,207→