ArticleThe Annals of thoracic surgery2026
Improving Risk Adjustment in the Assessment of Congenital Heart Center Surgical Quality.
Article in The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding center performance in congenital heart surgery remains challenging, with limitations to standard regression approaches. Modern causal inference methods may improve estimation of expected mortality through better balancing case mix but have not been studied.
methodsBenchmark operations across 115 centers (2016-2022) from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Database were included. The standard approach uses mixed-effects logistic regression to estimate centers' expected operative mortality inclusive of all patients, even those treated at the center of interest ("target") and those from other centers regardless of how closely aligned with the target they are. The causal approach creates tailored comparison groups, including only similar patients from other centers, by using weights. The study used 3 different weights (entropy balancing weight [EBW], stable balancing weight [SBW], and covariate balancing propensity score [CBPS]) and compared them with standard regression.
resultsAmong 42,579 benchmark operations, overall operative mortality was 2.37%. Centers' mean (25th-75th percentiles [interquartile range; IQR]) regression-based expected mortality was lower (2.03% [IQR, 1.42%-2.58%]) than weighted estimates (EBW, 2.10% [IQR, 1.64%-2.67%]; SBW, 2.09% [IQR, 1.57%-2.69%]; CBPS, 2.10% [IQR, 1.63%-2.66%]) and less variable. The mean ratio of weighted to regression mortality estimate was 1.03 for all estimates, with IQRs: EBW [IQR, 0.89-1.16], SBW [IQR, 0.87-1.15], and CBPS [IQR, 0.92-1.17]. The distributions of operation type and other risk factors were better aligned with the target center in weighted estimates. The largest differences among methods were observed at smaller-volume centers.
conclusionsCausal inference methods constructed more tailored comparison groups for estimating centers' expected mortality, with better alignment of case mix. Adoption of newer approaches may be warranted.
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.