ArticleHealth services research2015
On the Hospital Volume and Outcome Relationship: Does Specialization Matter More Than Volume?
Article in Health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The health effects of nursing home specialization in post-acute care.Journal of health economics · 2023Article
- Mortality analysis among sepsis patients in and out of intensive care units using the Japanese nationwide medical claims database: a study by the Japan Sepsis Alliance study group.Journal of intensive care · 2023Article
- Association of Annual Intensive Care Unit Sepsis Caseload With Hospital Mortality From Sepsis in the United Kingdom, 2010-2016.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Assessing the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Volume-outcome relationship on survival and cost benefits in severe burn injury: a retrospective analysis of a Japanese nationwide administrative database.Journal of intensive care · 2019Article
- Measuring the Volume-Outcome Relation for Complex Hospital Surgery.Applied health economics and health policy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the relationship between hospital volume and outcome by focusing on alternative measures of volume that capture specialization and overall throughput of hospitals. DATA SOURCES/STUDY
settingHospital administrative data from the state of Victoria, Australia; data contain 1,798,474 admitted episodes reported by 135 public and private acute-care hospitals. STUDY
designThis study contrasts the volume-outcome relationship using regression models with different measures of volume; two-step and single-step risk-adjustment methods are used. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsThe sample is restricted to ischemic heart disease (IHD) patients (ICD-10 codes: I20-I25) admitted during 2001/02 to 2004/05. PRINCIPAL
findingsOverall hospital throughput and degree of specialization display more substantive implications for the volume-outcome relationship than conventional caseload volume measure. Two-step estimation when corrected for heteroscedasticity produces comparable results to single-step methods.
conclusionsDifferent measures of volume could lead to vastly different conclusions about the volume-outcome relationship. Hospital specialization and throughput should both be included as measures of volume to capture the notion of size, focus, and possible congestion effects.
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.