ArticleHealth care management science2004
A frontier analysis approach for benchmarking hospital performance in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction.
Article in Health care management science, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal cholesterol treatment plans and genetic testing strategies for cardiovascular diseases.Health care management science · 2021Article
- Benchmarking facilities providing care: An international overview of initiatives.SAGE open medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper uses a non-parametric frontier model and adaptations of the concepts of cross-efficiency and peer-appraisal to develop a formal methodology for benchmarking provider performance in the treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). Parameters used in the benchmarking process are the rates of proper recognition of indications of six standard treatment processes for AMI; the decision making units (DMUs) to be compared are the Medicare eligible hospitals of a particular state; the analysis produces an ordinal ranking of individual hospital performance scores. The cross-efficiency/peer-appraisal calculation process is constructed to accommodate DMUs that experience no patients in some of the treatment categories. While continuing to rate highly the performances of DMUs which are efficient in the Pareto-optimal sense, our model produces individual DMU performance scores that correlate significantly with good overall performance, as determined by a comparison of the sums of the individual DMU recognition rates for the six standard treatment processes. The methodology is applied to data collected from 107 state Medicare hospitals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15152979What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.