ArticleIEEE transactions on human-machine systems2015
Effect of pooled comparative information on judgments of quality.
Article in IEEE transactions on human-machine systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quality assessment is the focus of many health care initiatives. Yet it is not well understood how the type of information used in decision support tools to enable judgments of quality based on data impacts the accuracy, consistency and reliability of judgments made by physicians. Comparative pooled information could allow physicians to judge the quality of their practice by making comparisons to other practices or other specific populations of patients. In this study, resident physicians were provided with varying types of information derived from pooled patient data sets: quality component measures at the individual and group level, a qualitative interpretation of the quality measures using percentile rank, and an aggregate composite quality score. 32 participants viewed thirty quality profiles consisting of information applicable to the practice of thirty de-identified resident physicians. Those provided with quality component measures and a qualitative interpretation of the quality measures (rankings) judged quality of care more similarly to experts and were more internally consistent compared to participants who were provided with quality component measures alone. Reliability between participants was significantly less for those who were provided with a composite quality score compared to those who were not.
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.