Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12054406›Full record

SynthesisCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2002

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing mortality rates of private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals.

P J Devereaux, Peter T L Choi, Christina Lacchetti, Bruce Weaver, Holger J Schünemann, Ted Haines, John N Lavis, Brydon J B Grant, David R S Haslam, Mohit Bhandari and 7 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of regulating drug insurance schemes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2004
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Fraying at the Edges of the Public Healthcare System in Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Measuring Quality in Home Healthcare.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

P J DevereauxDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. philipj@mcmaster.ca
Peter T L Choi
Christina Lacchetti
Bruce Weaver
Holger J Schünemann
Ted Haines
John N Lavis
Brydon J B Grant
David R S Haslam
Mohit Bhandari
Terrence Sullivan
Deborah J Cook
Stephen D Walter
Maureen Meade
Humaira Khan
Neera Bhatnagar
Gordon H Guyatt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCanadians are engaged in an intense debate about the relative merits of private for-profit versus private not-for-profit health care delivery. To inform this debate, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the mortality rates of private for-profit hospitals and those of private not-for-profit hospitals.

methodsWe identified studies through an electronic search of 11 bibliographical databases, our own files, consultation with experts, reference lists, PubMed and SciSearch. We masked the study results before determining study eligibility. Our eligibility criteria included observational studies or randomized controlled trials that compared private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. We excluded studies that evaluated mortality rates in hospitals with a particular profit status that subsequently converted to the other profit status. For each study, we calculated a relative risk of mortality for private for-profit hospitals relative to private not-for-profit hospitals and pooled the studies of adult populations that included adjustment for potential confounders (e.g., teaching status, severity of illness) using a random effects model.

resultsFifteen observational studies, involving more than 26 000 hospitals and 38 million patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In the studies of adult populations, with adjustment for potential confounders, private for-profit hospitals were associated with an increased risk of death (relative risk [RR] 1.020, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003-1.038; p = 0.02). The one perinatal study with adjustment for potential confounders also showed an increased risk of death in private for-profit hospitals (RR 1.095, 95% CI 1.050-1.141; p < 0.0001).

interpretationOur meta-analysis suggests that private for-profit ownership of hospitals, in comparison with private not-for-profit ownership, results in a higher risk of death for patients.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityHospitals, ProprietaryHospitals, VoluntaryQuality of Health CareHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID12054406
PMCPMC111211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.