Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34492062›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Can we trust the standardized mortality ratio? A formal analysis and evaluation based on axiomatic requirements.

Martin Roessler, Jochen Schmitt, Olaf Schoffer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Models and methods for analysing clustered recurrent hospitalisations in the presence of COVID-19 effects.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2024
    Article
  6. Mortality rate in patients in a long-term psychiatric care facility in Johannesburg.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

3 authors.

Martin RoesslerZentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Universitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4662-4156
Jochen SchmittZentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Universitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Olaf SchofferZentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Universitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6922-7148

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe standardized mortality ratio (SMR) is often used to assess and compare hospital performance. While it has been recognized that hospitals may differ in their SMRs due to differences in patient composition, there is a lack of rigorous analysis of this and other-largely unrecognized-properties of the SMR.

methodsThis paper proposes five axiomatic requirements for adequate standardized mortality measures: strict monotonicity (monotone relation to actual mortality rates), case-mix insensitivity (independence of patient composition), scale insensitivity (independence of hospital size), equivalence principle (equal rating of hospitals with equal actual mortality rates in all patient groups), and dominance principle (better rating of unambiguously better performing hospitals). Given these axiomatic requirements, effects of variations in patient composition, hospital size, and actual and expected mortality rates on the SMR were examined using basic algebra and calculus. In this regard, we distinguished between standardization using expected mortality rates derived from a different dataset (external standardization) and standardization based on a dataset including the considered hospitals (internal standardization). The results were illustrated by hypothetical examples.

resultsUnder external standardization, the SMR fulfills the axiomatic requirements of strict monotonicity and scale insensitivity but violates the requirement of case-mix insensitivity, the equivalence principle, and the dominance principle. All axiomatic requirements not fulfilled under external standardization are also not fulfilled under internal standardization. In addition, the SMR under internal standardization is scale sensitive and violates the axiomatic requirement of strict monotonicity.

conclusionsThe SMR fulfills only two (none) out of the five proposed axiomatic requirements under external (internal) standardization. Generally, the SMRs of hospitals are differently affected by variations in case mix and actual and expected mortality rates unless the hospitals are identical in these characteristics. These properties hamper valid assessment and comparison of hospital performance based on the SMR.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityMortalityDiagnosis-Related GroupsHospitalsHumansModels, TheoreticalQuality of Health CareRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID34492062
PMCPMC8423297
OpenAlexW3198152633

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.