ArticlePloS one2018
Standardization of medical service indicators: A useful technique for hospital administration.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From conventional healthcare to e-health: Social and spatial transformation. Using a comparison between Hong Kong and Mainland China.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany comparability problems appear in the process of the performance assessment of medical service. When comparing medical evaluation indicators across hospitals, or even within the same hospital, over time, the differences in the population composition such as types of diseases, comorbidities, demographic characteristics should be taken into account. This study aims to introduce a standardization technique for medical service indicators and provide a new insight on the comparability of medical data.
methodsThe medical records of 142592 inpatient from three hospitals in 2017 were included in this study. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to explore the compositions of confounding factors among populations. The procedure of stratified standardization technique was applied to compare the differences of the average length of stay and the average hospitalization expense among three hospitals.
resultsAge, gender, comorbidity, and principal diagnoses category were considered as confounding factors. After correcting all factors, the average length of stay of hospital A and C were increased by 0.21 and 1.20 days, respectively, while that of hospital B was reduced by 1.54 days. The average hospitalization expenses of hospital A and C were increased by 1494 and 660 Yuan, whilst that of hospital B was decreased by 810 Yuan.
conclusionsStandardization method will be helpful to improve the comparability of medical service indicators in hospital administration. It could be a practical technique and worthy of promotion.
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.