Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33258459›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Comparing Precision Machine Learning With Consumer, Quality, and Volume Metrics for Ranking Orthopedic Surgery Hospitals: Retrospective Study.

Dev Goyal, John Guttag, Zeeshan Syed, Rudra Mehta, Zahoor Elahi, Mohammed Saeed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dev GoyalHealth at Scale Corporation, San Jose, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4680-3637
John GuttagDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0992-0906
Zeeshan SyedHealth at Scale Corporation, San Jose, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3838-0398
Rudra MehtaHealth at Scale Corporation, San Jose, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7584-8362
Zahoor ElahiHealth at Scale Corporation, San Jose, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8544-4481
Mohammed SaeedHealth at Scale Corporation, San Jose, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1421-6094

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients' choices of providers when undergoing elective surgeries significantly impact both perioperative outcomes and costs. There exist a variety of approaches that are available to patients for evaluating between different hospital choices.

objectiveThis paper aims to compare differences in outcomes and costs between hospitals ranked using popular internet-based consumer ratings, quality stars, reputation rankings, average volumes, average outcomes, and precision machine learning-based rankings for hospital settings performing hip replacements in a large metropolitan area.

methodsRetrospective data from 4192 hip replacement surgeries among Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 in a the Chicago metropolitan area were analyzed for variations in outcomes (90-day postprocedure hospitalizations and emergency department visits) and costs (90-day total cost of care) between hospitals ranked through multiple approaches: internet-based consumer ratings, quality stars, reputation rankings, average yearly surgical volume, average outcome rates, and machine learning-based rankings. The average rates of outcomes and costs were compared between the patients who underwent surgery at a hospital using each ranking approach in unadjusted and propensity-based adjusted comparisons.

resultsOnly a minority of patients (1159/4192, 27.6% to 2078/4192, 49.6%) were found to be matched to higher-ranked hospitals for each of the different approaches. Of the approaches considered, hip replacements at hospitals that were more highly ranked by consumer ratings, quality stars, and machine learning were all consistently associated with improvements in outcomes and costs in both adjusted and unadjusted analyses. The improvement was greatest across all metrics and analyses for machine learning-based rankings.

conclusionsThere may be a substantive opportunity to increase the number of patients matched to appropriate hospitals across a broad variety of ranking approaches. Elective hip replacement surgeries performed at hospitals where patients were matched based on patient-specific machine learning were associated with better outcomes and lower total costs of care.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHospitalsHumansMachine LearningMaleOrthopedicsPrecision MedicineRetrospective Studieshospitalhospital ratingsinternetmachine learningoutcomeperioperativeprecision deliveryreputationsurgery

Identifiers

PMID33258459
PMCPMC7738251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.