ArticleJournal of medical systems2016
Importance of Statistical Evidence in Estimating Valid DEA Scores.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digitalization enhancement in the pharmaceutical supply network using a supply chain risk management approach.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The Core of Healthcare Efficiency: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Review on Frontier Analysis of Hospitals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- A New Strategy to Evaluate Technical Efficiency in Hospitals Using Homogeneous Groups of Casemix : How to Evaluate When There is Not DRGs?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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) allows healthcare scholars to measure productivity in a holistic manner. It combines a production unit's multiple outputs and multiple inputs into a single measure of its overall performance relative to other units in the sample being analyzed. It accomplishes this task by aggregating a unit's weighted outputs and dividing the output sum by the unit's aggregated weighted inputs, choosing output and input weights that maximize its output/input ratio when the same weights are applied to other units in the sample. Conventional DEA assumes that inputs and outputs are used in different proportions by the units in the sample. So, for the sample as a whole, inputs have been substituted for each other and outputs have been transformed into each other. Variables are assigned different weights based on their marginal rates of substitution and marginal rates of transformation. If in truth inputs have not been substituted nor outputs transformed, then there will be no marginal rates and therefore no valid basis for differential weights. This paper explains how to statistically test for the presence of substitutions among inputs and transformations among outputs. Then, it applies these tests to the input and output data from three healthcare DEA articles, in order to identify the effects on DEA scores when input substitutions and output transformations are absent in the sample data. It finds that DEA scores are badly biased when substitution and transformation are absent and conventional DEA models are used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26643077What 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.