ArticleDigital health
Developing a streamlined risk-adjusted cesarean section rate model for evaluation of obstetrical quality across hospitals by using EHRs: A provincial-scale multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Digital health. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to explore a streamlined risk-adjusted cesarean section rate (RCSR) model and to compare its practical application effects with the traditional RCSR models. Methods: Utilizing obstetric electronic health record (EHR) data from provincial multicenter hospitals, this study establishes a streamlined RCSR model alongside the traditional RCSR model and evaluates the efficacy of both models. Subsequently, the RCSRs of 56 hospitals within the province are calculated and ranked using both models. The consistency of these rankings is then quantified using Kendall's tau coefficient of concordance. Result: Comparison of model effectiveness evaluation of the traditional RCSR model versus the streamlined RCSR model is as follows: AUC (0.840 vs 0.839), accuracy (0.875 vs 0.872), sensitivity (0.690 vs 0.685), specificity (0.898 vs 0.892), positive predictive value (0.908 vs 0.903), negative predictive value (0.664 vs 0.660), and Brier score (0.069 vs 0.067). In the test of the consistency of hospital rankings based on two models, Kendall's tau coefficients were observed to be 0.979 (year 2017), 0.978 (year 2018), and 0.978 (year 2019) over a span of 3 years, with an aggregate coefficient of 0.974. Conclusion: In the realm of model performance evaluation as well as the pragmatic application within hospital settings, the streamlined model exhibits a substantial congruence with the traditional model. Therefore, the streamlined model can effectively serve as a viable surrogate for the traditional model, potentially establishing itself as a refined paradigm for the appraisal of quality in obstetric healthcare services.
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.