Considering potential benefits and consequences of hospital report cards: what are the next steps?

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Accounting for past patient composition in evaluations of quality reporting.Health services research · 2022
   Article
2. Transplant community perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of alternative quality metrics for regulation.Clinical transplantation · 2019
   Article
3. Reported effects of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients 5-tier rating system on US transplant centers: results of a national survey.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2018
   Article
4. Factors leading to the discard of deceased donor kidneys in the United States.Kidney international · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Patient selection and volume in the era surrounding implementation of Medicare conditions of participation for transplant programs.2015

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as