ReviewSurgical endoscopy2019
Public reporting and transparency: a primer on public outcomes reporting.
Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. 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.
- Improving Antimicrobial Utilization and Infection Control in Ophthalmology: An Information-Assisted Transparent Supervision and Multidisciplinary Team Model.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare consumers seeking accurate information about where to find quality surgical care face a confusing constellation of rating systems that lack transparency or consistency of opinion. For example, a 2016 report in Health Affairs demonstrated that no hospital was rated as a high performer by all four prominent national ratings systems: Consumer Reports, Leapfrog, Healthgrades and U.S. News & World Report (Austin et al. Health Aff 34:423-430, 2015). Surgeons should have an understanding of the current state of public reporting of quality; hospital ratings and data sources; physician ratings and data sources; and transparency of reporting.
methodsWe conducted a non-systematic review of the literature.
resultsHospital quality ratings remain nebulous and there is not universal opinion on the utility of voluntary participation in ranking systems, leaving the current systems largely opinion-based. Early attempts at physician ranking systems are rudimentary at best and suffer from methodological concerns. Publicly reported metrics should be easily understandable, accessible, clinically relevant, reliable, non-punitive, and shielded from legal discovery. Transparency is increasing within institutions to help align staff to institutional objectives, while specialty specific registries are helping to standardize care pathways and outcomes measures across organizations. Measuring surgical outcomes beyond 30-day morbidity and mortality has been plagued by a lack of understanding on how to create metrics that matter; the four attributes of relevance, scientific soundness, feasibility and comprehensiveness set a high bar for the development of effective and efficient quality measures in surgery. DISCUSSION: SAGES, via the Quality, Outcomes, and Safety Committee, is committed to learning how to develop meaningful quality metrics in general surgery and will continue to work in other areas that impact quality, such as opioid prescribing, and surgeon wellness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31161288What 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.