ArticleJournal of medical systems2011
The impact of non-discretionary factors on DEA and SFA technical efficiency differences.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Frontier-based techniques in measuring hospital efficiency in Iran: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.BMC health services research · 2013Pooled it
- Efficiency of the healthcare system and the impact of smoking bans: a DEA analysis of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area in Asia.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Health systems efficiency in China and ASEAN, 2015-2020: a DEA-Tobit and SFA analysis application.BMJ open · 2023Article
- A Novel Hybrid Parametric and Non-Parametric Optimisation Model for Average Technical Efficiency Assessment in Public Hospitals during and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Measuring Efficiency of Secondary Healthcare Providers in Slovenia.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2017Article
- Importance of Statistical Evidence in Estimating Valid DEA Scores.Journal of medical systems · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine if factors of the external operating environment can explain differences in technical efficiency derived from Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA). In a sample of 124 dialysis facilities, technical efficiency was compared according to ownership, region, years in operation and size. With second-stage Tobit regression, DEA and SFA efficiency was regressed against these environmental factors to determine their potential for predicting technical efficiency, as well as the efficiency differences between the two frontier methods. DEA expectedly generated lower mean efficiency scores than SFA (68.2% vs. 79.4%, P < 0.001), due to the "random effects" term computed by the latter, in addition to "true" inefficiency. This finding was consistent for the subgroups formed on the basis of the environmental factors. Half the variation in the DEA-SFA efficiency differences was explained by environmental factors. This suggests that in addition to market instabilities, luck, and other related phenomena, decision-makers in their effort to determine optimal resource allocation, should point their attention to the potentially useful insight provided by environmental factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20703676What 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.