ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Internal validation of self-reported case numbers in hospital quality reports: preparing secondary data for health services research.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cooperative spatial modelling of hospital compliance with minimum caseload requirements.International journal of health geographics · 2026Article
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
backgroundHealth services research often relies on secondary data, necessitating quality checks for completeness, validity, and potential errors before use. Various methods address implausible data, including data elimination, statistical estimation, or value substitution from the same or another dataset. This study presents an internal validation process of a secondary dataset used to investigate hospital compliance with minimum caseload requirements (MCR) in Germany. The secondary data source validated is the German Hospital Quality Reports (GHQR), an official dataset containing structured self-reported data from all hospitals in Germany.
methodsThis study conducted an internal cross-field validation of MCR-related data in GHQR from 2016 to 2021. The validation process checked the validity of reported MCR caseloads, including data availability and consistency, by comparing the stated MCR caseload with further variables in the GHQR. Subsequently, implausible MCR caseload values were corrected using the most plausible values given in the same GHQR. The study also analysed the error sources and used reimbursement-related Diagnosis Related Groups Statistic data to assess the validation outcomes.
resultsThe analysis focused on four MCR procedures. 11.8-27.7% of the total MCR caseload values in the GHQR appeared ambiguous, and 7.9-23.7% were corrected. The correction added 0.7-3.7% of cases not previously stated as MCR caseloads and added 1.5-26.1% of hospital sites as MCR performing hospitals not previously stated in the GHQR. The main error source was this non-reporting of MCR caseloads, especially by hospitals with low case numbers. The basic plausibility control implemented by the Federal Joint Committee since 2018 has improved the MCR-related data quality over time.
conclusionsThis study employed a comprehensive approach to dataset internal validation that encompassed: (1) hospital association level data, (2) hospital site level data and (3) medical department level data, (4) report data spanning six years, and (5) logical plausibility checks. To ensure data completeness, we selected the most plausible values without eliminating incomplete or implausible data. For future practice, we recommend a validation process when using GHQR as a data source for MCR-related research. Additionally, an adapted plausibility control could help to improve the quality of MCR documentation.
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.