ArticleHealth services research2024
Split-sample reliability estimation in health care quality measurement: Once is not enough.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a pragmatic measure of context at the organizational level: The Inventory of Factors Affecting Successful Implementation and Sustainment (IFASIS).Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Comparing methods for assessing the reliability of health care quality measures.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Split-sample reliability estimation in health care quality measurement: Once is not enough.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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the sensitivity of split-sample reliability estimates to the random split of the data and propose alternative methods for improving the stability of the split-sample method. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY
settingData were simulated to reflect a variety of real-world quality measure distributions and scenarios. There is no date range to report as the data are simulated. STUDY
designSimulation studies of split-sample reliability estimation were conducted under varying practical scenarios. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsAll data were simulated using functions in R. PRINCIPAL
findingsSingle split-sample reliability estimates can be very dependent on the random split of the data, especially in low sample size and low variability settings. Averaging split-sample estimates over many splits of the data can yield a more stable reliability estimate.
conclusionsMeasure developers and evaluators using the split-sample reliability method should average a series of reliability estimates calculated from many resamples of the data without replacement to obtain a more stable reliability estimate.
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.