Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Utilization Review”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,603 records · Page 89Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Analysis of genetically modified oils.

Genetically modified oils with altered functional or nutritional characteristics are being introduced into the marketplace. A wide array of analytical techniques has been utilized to facilitate developing these oils. This article attempts to review the utilization of these analytical procedures for characterizing both the chemistry and some functionality of these oils. Although techniques to assess oxidative stability in frying and food applications are covered, measurement of nutritional characteristics are not.

Chromatography↗
PubMed1988

Psychiatric UR worksheet.

This worksheet was developed in response to an ever increasing number and intensity of admission and concurrent telephone reviews conducted by third and fourth-party payors. This worksheet was developed as an aid in information gathering for subsequent telephone and other reviews. The left-margin headings evolved from queries for information from the most demanding psychiatric nurse reviewers. When I have fully addressed all the information in my review, it is usually no problem in obtaining certification for admission or continued stay for the patient.

Alcoholism↗
PubMed1998

Expert panel assessment of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: global judgement versus probability estimation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare an expert panel's global assessment of appropriateness of elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) with their assessment of the effect of surgery on the probability of 5-year mortality. METHODS: Nine expert panel members rated the appropriateness of 120 scenarios for elective AAA repair on a nine-point scale, and also estimated the 5-year probability of AAA-related death and of non-AAA related death among 30-day survivors of AAA surgery and among patients with unoperated AAA. These probabilities were used to determine differences in 5-year probability of mortality of surgery vs. no surgery for each scenario. Three categories of appropriateness were defined based on these differences: inappropriate (< 0%), equivocal (0-5%), and appropriate (> 5%). RESULTS: The distribution of scenarios was inappropriate (39%), equivocal (12%), and appropriate (49%) based on probability estimates and inappropriate (43%), equivocal (22%), and appropriate (36%) based on global assessment. There was poor agreement between the two methods, with a Kappa coefficient = 0.28 (95% CI: 0.23 to 0.32). Although a higher proportion of scenarios were rated as appropriate using probability estimation rather than global judgment, the level of agreement among members of the panel was similar, Kappa coefficient = 0.07 (95% CI: -0.07 to 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Experts disagree about the appropriate indications for elective surgery for AAA. Explicit estimates used in a decision analysis may provide a better assessment of appropriate indications than the global judgment of experts. Global assessment of the appropriateness of AAA surgery based on panel members' review of research evidence for increased survival appears to include implicitly their valuation of outcomes.

Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal↗