Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24334377›Full record

ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2014

The Dutch hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR) method and cardiac surgery: benchmarking in a national cohort using hospital administration data versus a clinical database.

S Siregar, M E Pouw, K G M Moons, M I M Versteegh, M L Bots, Y van der Graaf, C J Kalkman, L A van Herwerden, R H H Groenwold

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019
    Article
  7. Nationwide claims data validated for quality assessments in acute myocardial infarction in the Netherlands.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. [The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement].Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen · 2016
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Comparison of three contemporary risk scores for mortality following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2014
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

S SiregarDepartment of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, , Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M E Pouw
K G M Moons
M I M Versteegh
M L Bots
Y van der Graaf
C J Kalkman
L A van Herwerden
R H H Groenwold

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the accuracy of data from hospital administration databases and a national clinical cardiac surgery database and to compare the performance of the Dutch hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR) method and the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation, for the purpose of benchmarking of mortality across hospitals.

methodsInformation on all patients undergoing cardiac surgery between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2010 in 10 centres was extracted from The Netherlands Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery database and the Hospital Discharge Registry. The number of cardiac surgery interventions was compared between both databases. The European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation and hospital standardised mortality ratio models were updated in the study population and compared using the C-statistic, calibration plots and the Brier-score.

resultsThe number of cardiac surgery interventions performed could not be assessed using the administrative database as the intervention code was incorrect in 1.4-26.3%, depending on the type of intervention. In 7.3% no intervention code was registered. The updated administrative model was inferior to the updated clinical model with respect to discrimination (c-statistic of 0.77 vs 0.85, p<0.001) and calibration (Brier Score of 2.8% vs 2.6%, p<0.001, maximum score 3.0%). Two average performing hospitals according to the clinical model became outliers when benchmarking was performed using the administrative model.

conclusionsIn cardiac surgery, administrative data are less suitable than clinical data for the purpose of benchmarking. The use of either administrative or clinical risk-adjustment models can affect the outlier status of hospitals. Risk-adjustment models including procedure-specific clinical risk factors are recommended.

Indexed as

Hospital RecordsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBenchmarkingCardiac Surgical ProceduresChildChild, PreschoolDatabases, FactualFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeart DiseasesHospital AdministrationHospital MortalityHumansCardiac Surgery

Identifiers

PMID24334377
PMCPMC3995286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.