ArticleHealth services research2024
Separating the wheat from the chaff: How to measure hospital quality in routine data?
Article in Health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Vitrectomy After Cataract Surgery as a Patient Safety Indicator: A Rapid Review to Support Benchmarking Within the Austrian Inpatient Quality Indicators Framework.Journal of patient safety · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of Primary Healthcare Quality and Effectiveness on Hospitalization Indicators in Brazil.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Determinants of Patients' Perception of Primary Healthcare Quality: Empirical Analysis in the Brazilian Health System.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Separating the wheat from the chaff: How to measure hospital quality in routine data?Health services research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo measure hospital quality based on routine data available in many health care systems including the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and Switzerland. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY
settingWe use the Swiss Medical Statistics of Hospitals, an administrative hospital dataset of all inpatient stays in acute care hospitals in Switzerland for the years 2017-2019. STUDY
designWe study hospital quality based on quality indicators used by leading agencies in five countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) for two high-volume elective procedures: inguinal hernia repair and hip replacement surgery. We assess how least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), a supervised machine learning technique for variable selection, and Mundlak corrections that account for unobserved heterogeneity between hospitals can be used to improve risk adjustment and correct for imbalances in patient risks across hospitals. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsThe Swiss Federal Statistical Office collects annual data on all acute care inpatient stays including basic socio-demographic patient attributes and case-level diagnosis and procedure codes. PRINCIPAL
findingsWe find that LASSO-selected and Mundlak-corrected hospital random effects logit models outperform common practice logistic regression models used for risk adjustment. Besides the more favorable statistical properties, they have superior in- and out-of-sample explanatory power. Moreover, we find that Mundlak-corrected logits and the more complex LASSO-selected models identify the same hospitals as high or low-quality offering public health authorities a valuable alternative to standard logistic regression models. Our analysis shows that hospitals vary considerably in the quality they provide to patients.
conclusionWe find that routine hospital data can be used to measure clinically relevant quality indicators that help patients make informed hospital choices.
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.