ArticleBMJ open2025
Reliability of data-driven versus expert-driven composite indicators in between-hospital comparisons on quality of oesophagogastric cancer surgery: a population-based retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo construct a data-driven composite from (a subset of) currently used quality indicators for oesophagogastric cancer surgery and to evaluate whether this approach enhances the reliability of between-hospital comparisons on outcome relative to the expert-driven composite indicator 'textbook outcome (TO)'.
designIn this retrospective cohort study, we applied Item Response Theory (IRT) to construct a data-driven continuous composite indicator reflecting a single latent variable-the quality of surgical care-and estimated latent variable scores for all individual patients. Reliability was compared between the expert-driven (TO) and data-driven (IRT) composite indicators.
settingAll Dutch hospitals providing oesophagogastric cancer surgery.
participantsAll patients who underwent oesophagectomy (n=3588) or gastrectomy (n=1782) between 2018 and 2022 as registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We evaluated the reliability of between-hospital comparisons using 'rankability', which quantifies the proportion of observed variation in indicator scores between hospitals not attributable to chance.
resultsSeven out of 15 quality indicators were included in the IRT composite indicator. Most of the patients were assigned the artificial maximum of the continuous quality score (ie, ceiling effect), resulting in similar average hospital scores. Relative to TO, rankability increased when using the IRT composite for oesophagectomy (57% vs 41%) but declined for gastrectomy (38% vs 47%).
conclusionsThe selected seven quality indicators for oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery represent a single latent variable but are not yet optimal for differentiating surgical care quality due to ceiling effects. Despite using fewer indicators, the continuous IRT score showed a promising increase in rankability for oesophagectomy, suggesting that data-driven composite indicators may enhance hospital benchmarking reliability.
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.