ArticleHealth services research2016
Indirect Standardization Matching: Assessing Specific Advantage and Risk Synergy.
Article in Health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A method to reduce imbalance for site-level randomized stepped wedge implementation trial designs.Implementation science : IS · 2019Trial
- Understanding the socio-economic and health burden of obesity: a 10-year retrospective analysis of population-wide administrative healthcare data.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2026Review
- Assessing Hospital Surgical Quality.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Measuring quality of care in moderate and late preterm infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2022Article
- Emerging approaches to multiple chronic condition assessment.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparing Outcomes and Costs of Medical Patients Treated at Major Teaching and Non-teaching Hospitals: A National Matched Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Comparing Resource Use in Medical Admissions of Children With Complex Chronic Conditions.Medical care · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a method to allow a hospital to compare its performance using its entire patient population to the outcomes of very similar patients treated elsewhere. DATA SOURCES/
settingMedicare claims in orthopedics and common general, gynecologic, and urologic surgery from Illinois, New York, and Texas from 2004 to 2006. STUDY
designUsing two example "focal" hospitals, each hospital's patients were matched to 10 very similar patients selected from 619 other hospitals. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsAll patients were used at each focal hospital, and we found the 10 closest matched patients from control hospitals with exactly the same principal procedure as each focal patient. PRINCIPAL
findingsWe achieved exact matches on all procedures and very close matches for other patient characteristics for both hospitals. There were few to no differences between each hospital's patients and their matched control patients on most patient characteristics, yet large and significant differences were observed for mortality, failure-to-rescue, and cost.
conclusionIndirect standardization matching can produce fair audits of quality and cost, allowing for a comprehensive, transparent, and relevant assessment of all patients at a focal hospital. With this approach, hospitals will be better able to benchmark their performance and determine where quality improvement is most needed.
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.