SynthesisHealth services research2009
A systematic review of health care efficiency measures.
Synthesis in Health services research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
72 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Approach in inputs & outputs selection of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) efficiency measurement in hospitals: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Analysing the Efficiency of Health Systems: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of Lean Interventions Supported by Digital Technologies on Healthcare Services: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Assessing the Impact of Lean Healthcare on Inpatient Care: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Primary care efficiency measurement using data envelopment analysis: a systematic review.Journal of medical systems · 2015Pooled it
- Frontier-based techniques in measuring hospital efficiency in Iran: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.BMC health services research · 2013Pooled it
- Presenting Cost and Efficiency Measures That Support Consumers to Make High-Value Health Care Choices.Health services research · 2018Trial
- Beyond Budget Execution: Financial and Operational Indicator Profiles in Bacău County's Maternal and Child Health Programme, Romania, 2021-2024.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Availability of adolescent mental, sexual and reproductive health services (ASRH) and technical efficiency of ASRH service delivery in Niger.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Predictive modeling of corporate financial risk and its implications for health economics and public health efficiency.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Comparing service delivery models in Finnish dental care: efficiency of the single-visit approach.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Three decades in healthcare service efficiency evaluation: a bootstrapping Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) of Ministry of Health Malaysia.Health economics review · 2025Article
- A roadmap to precision medicine through post-genomic electronic medical records.Nature communications · 2025Review
- Developing Assessments for Key Stakeholders in Pediatric Congenital Heart Disease: Qualitative Pilot Study to Inform Designing of a Medical Education Toy.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Design proposals for the preferred service ecosystem for senior citizens living at home: a service design study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- The Challenges Ahead: Concepts, Analytics, and Ethics of Value-Based Care in Applied Behavior Analysis.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Review
- Health system description and assessment: a scoping review of templates for systematic analyses.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Definition and understanding of "efficiency" in healthcare provision research: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Comparison of diagnosis-based risk adjustment methods for episode-based costs to apply in efficiency measurement.BMC health services research · 2023Article
12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review and characterize existing health care efficiency measures in order to facilitate a common understanding about the adequacy of these methods. DATA SOURCES: Review of the MedLine and EconLit databases for articles published from 1990 to 2008, as well as search of the "gray" literature for additional measures developed by private organizations. STUDY
designWe performed a systematic review for existing efficiency measures. We classified the efficiency measures by perspective, outputs, inputs, methods used, and reporting of scientific soundness. PRINCIPAL
findingsWe identified 265 measures in the peer-reviewed literature and eight measures in the gray literature, with little overlap between the two sets of measures. Almost all of the measures did not explicitly consider the quality of care. Thus, if quality varies substantially across groups, which is likely in some cases, the measures reflect only the costs of care, not efficiency. Evidence on the measures' scientific soundness was mostly lacking: evidence on reliability or validity was reported for six measures (2.3 percent) and sensitivity analyses were reported for 67 measures (25.3 percent).
conclusionsEfficiency measures have been subjected to few rigorous evaluations of reliability and validity, and methods of accounting for quality of care in efficiency measurement are not well developed at this time. Use of these measures without greater understanding of these issues is likely to engender resistance from providers and could lead to unintended consequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.