0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review |

Association Between Compensation Status and Outcome After Surgery A Meta-analysis

Ian Harris, FRACS(Orth); Jonathan Mulford, MB,BS; Michael Solomon, FRACS; James M. van Gelder, FRACS; Jane Young, PhD
JAMA. 2005;293(13):1644-1652. doi:10.1001/jama.293.13.1644.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context Compensation, whether through workers’ compensation or through litigation, has been associated with poor outcome after surgery; however, this association has not been examined by meta-analysis.

Objective To investigate the association between compensation status and outcome after surgery.

Data Sources We searched MEDLINE (1966-2003), EMBASE (1980-2003), CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and reference lists of retrieved articles and textbooks, and we contacted experts in the field.

Study Selection The review included any trial of surgical intervention in which compensation status was reported and results were compared according to that status. No restrictions were placed on study design, language, or publication date. Studies were selected by 2 unblinded independent reviewers.

Data Extraction Two reviewers independently extracted data on study type, study quality, surgical procedure, outcome, country of origin, length and completeness of follow-up, and compensation type.

Data Synthesis Two hundred eleven studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Of these, 175 stated that the presence of compensation (workers’ compensation with or without litigation) was associated with a worse outcome, 35 found no difference or did not describe a difference, and 1 described a benefit associated with compensation. A meta-analysis of 129 studies with available data (n = 20 498 patients) revealed the summary odds ratio for an unsatisfactory outcome in compensated patients to be 3.79 (95% confidence interval, 3.28-4.37 by random-effects model). Grouping studies by country, procedure, length of follow-up, completeness of follow-up, study type, and type of compensation showed the association to be consistent for all subgroups.

Conclusions Compensation status is associated with poor outcome after surgery. This effect is significant, clinically important, and consistent. Because data were obtained from observational studies and were not homogeneous, the summary effect should be interpreted with caution. Compensation status should be considered a potential confounder in all studies of surgical intervention. Determination of the mechanism for this association requires further study.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Figures

Figure 1. Forest Plot of Random-Effects Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for Each Study in the Meta-analysis
Graphic Jump Location

See http://www.jama.com for Appendix of references to the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Figure 1b. Forest Plot of Random-Effects Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for Each Study in the Meta-analysis
Graphic Jump Location

See http://www.jama.com for Appendix of references to the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Figure 1c. Forest Plot of Random-Effects Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for Each Study in the Meta-analysis
Graphic Jump Location

See http://www.jama.com for Appendix of references to the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Figure 2. Funnel Plot of the Odds Ratios for All Studies in the Meta-analysis
Graphic Jump Location

Dotted line indicates summary odds ratio. Arrow at top right indicates outlier odds ratio of 102.6.

Tables

References

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1,975 Views
141 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
What are the Results?

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
How Strong Is the Association Between Exposure and Outcome?

×
brightcove.createExperiences();