Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38590087›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2024

Individualized empirical null estimation for exact tests of healthcare quality.

Nicholas Hartman, Kevin He

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2024. 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

2 authors.

Nicholas HartmanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8475-1973
Kevin HeDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8354-426X

Funding

Improve Statistical Methods for Profiling of Healthcare ProvidersR01DK129539 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Zhi Kevin He · 2022 to 2026
$1.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK129539NIDDK NIH HHS R01DK129539
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

United States federal agencies evaluate healthcare providers to identify, flag, and potentially penalize those that deliver low-quality care compared to national expectations. In practice, evaluation metrics are inevitably impacted by unobserved confounding factors, which reduce flagging accuracy and cause the statistics to be overdispersed relative to the theoretical null distributions. In response to this issue, several authors have proposed individualized empirical null (IEN) methods to estimate an appropriate null distribution for each provider's evaluation statistic while taking into account the provider's effective size. However, existing IEN methods require that the statistics asymptotically follow normal distributions, which often does not hold in applications with small providers or misspecified models. In this article, we develop an IEN framework for exact hypothesis tests that accounts for the impact of unobserved confounding without making any asymptotic assumptions. Simulations show that the proposed IEN method has greater flagging accuracy compared to conventional approaches. We apply these methods to evaluate dialysis facilities and transplant centers that are monitored by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.Computer SimulationHumansModels, StatisticalRenal DialysisUnited Statesempirical nullhealthcare provider profilinghealth policyunobserved confounding

Identifiers

PMID38590087
PMCPMC11698226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.