ArticleUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[Comparison of hospital rating websites among each other and with data from hospital quality reports and quality assurance based on routine data].
Article in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn addition to the objectifiable treatment quality, patients' perspectives are gaining relevance.
objectiveThis study aimed to characterize available hospital rating websites (HRW) with regards to patient ratings and to compare them with data from hospital quality reports and quality assurance based on routine data (QSR) for urological departments. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter a structured online search for HRWs, websites were compared based on patient ratings from the 10 urologic departments with the largest intervention rates in 2021 using generalized estimated equations. For radical prostatectomy (RPE), quantitative comparison of patient ratings (klinikbewertungen.de) and QSR-based ratings was performed using Spearman's rank correlation.
resultsOf 1845 hits, 25 portals were analyzed. The department-wise comparison of HRWs resulted in significantly different patient ratings (p < 0.001). Patient ratings (klinikbewertungen.de) and QSR data (AOK-Gesundheitsnavigator) showed no significant correlation. An internal comparison of QSR data and patient ratings from the AOK-Gesundheitsnavigator on RPE showed a significant negative correlation between the overall rating and unplanned reoperations (r = -0.81) or other complications (r = -0.91). There was no significant correlation with the recommendation rate by patients.
conclusionHospital rating websites show considerable heterogeneity regarding patient ratings of the same urology department in different portals. Furthermore, based on the selected examples, there seems to be no correlation between subjective and objective evaluations between different websites or within one website.
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.