ReviewCancers2021
Different Approaches for Case-Mix Adjustment of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Compare Healthcare Providers-Methodological Results of a Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation across operating sites in urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy in localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2022Trial
- Factors independently associated with in-hospital HRQoL in adults treated at a high-complexity institution in a middle-income country.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Locked-Window EQ-5D-5L (Index and VAS) Benchmarking in Sarcoma Care: Rule-Based Traffic-Light Classification Across Two Institutions.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Long-Term Impact of EGUIDE Training on Facility-Wide Guideline Adherence Rate in Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder-A Methodological Reflection.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2026Article
- Patterns of care and outcomes following external ventricular drain placement: Insights from the England HES administrative data set.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Beyond raw comparisons: Adjusted analysis reveals only minor inter-hospital differences in ACDF outcomes in Norway.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Benchmarking cancer outcomes in Europe: a scoping review of methodologies and case-mix adjustments.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2025Review
- Outlier ophthalmologists in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration with intravitreal therapy.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- An Overview of Patient-reported Outcomes for Men with Prostate Cancer: Results from the PIONEER Consortium.European urology open science · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical Outcome Assessment in Cancer Rehabilitation and the Central Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes.Cancers · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being used to compare the quality of outcomes between different healthcare providers (medical practices, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities). However, such comparisons can only be fair if differences in the case-mix between different types of provider are taken into account. This can be achieved with adequate statistical case-mix adjustment (CMA). To date, there is a lack of overview studies on current CMA methods for PROs. The aim of this study was to investigate which approaches are currently used to report and examine PROs for case-mix-adjusted comparison between providers. A systematic MEDLINE literature search was conducted (February 2021). The results were examined by two reviewers. Articles were included if they compared (a) different healthcare providers using (b) case-mix-adjusted (c) patient-reported outcomes (all AND conditions). From 640 hits obtained, 11 articles were included in the analysis. A wide variety of patient characteristics were used as adjustors, and baseline PRO scores and basic sociodemographic and clinical information were included in all models. Overall, the adjustment models used vary considerably. This evaluation is an initial attempt to systematically investigate different CMA approaches for PROs. As a standardized approach has not yet been established, we suggest creating a consensus-based methodological guideline for case-mix adjustment of PROs.
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.