ArticleBMC health services research2025
Case-mix adjustment through inverse probability weighting to compare health indicators across territories or providers - an application in the agency for health protection of Milan.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Epidemiological Unit of the Agency for Health Protection of Milan (ATS) calculates several indicators, at hospital and at patients' residence area level (group level of analysis), with monitoring and programming scopes. Outcome indicators are usually influenced by differences in subject case-mix; therefore, adjustment methods are applied to compare each group level with mean ATS values. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) is explored as an alternative to multivariable generalized linear model (GLM), to overcome some limitations of the latter method.
methodsTo implement IPW, a multinomial logistic model, with group level as dependent and subject characteristics as independent variables, was used to estimate patient weights, which were subsequently stabilized and truncated. Checks on IPW assumptions and covariates balance were implemented both in a quantitative and in a graphical way. Comparisons on adjustment performed with fixed effects and random intercept multivariable GLM were performed and exemplified using three outcome indicators.
resultsIPW assumptions were satisfied for all the indicators, and covariate balance presented minor issues for group levels with the lowest number of cases/events. Case-mix adjustment performed with multivariable fixed effects GLM showed a tendency to overestimate raw values and was characterized by broad confidence intervals in the three case-example indicators. Adjusted values produced using random intercept multivariable GLM suffered from a shrinkage towards the mean effect, particularly evident in the indicators with the lowest number of cases. IPW-adjusted estimates differed from raw values only when substantial differences in covariates distribution were present.
conclusionsProvided that appropriate checks are implemented, IPW adjustment is applicable in the context of healthcare quality evaluation and can be easily conveyed to healthcare managers for effective dissemination.
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.