ReviewESMO real world data and digital oncology2025
Benchmarking cancer outcomes in Europe: a scoping review of methodologies and case-mix adjustments.
Review in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in health outcomes of orthopedic rehabilitation after hip or knee replacement: a prospective pilot study benchmarking 23 rehabilitation facilities using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Case-mix-adjusted benchmarking of long-term breast cancer-specific mortality: Insights from a nationwide Swedish registry.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Benchmarking hospital outcomes is crucial for identifying inequities and improving cancer care. Meaningful comparisons require selecting relevant outcomes and adjusting for case-mix factors such as age, comorbidity, and stage. Without case-mix adjustment, hospitals may be unfairly assessed based on patient mix rather than care quality. No prior review has examined benchmarking practices in European cancer care. This scoping review addresses: (i) Which health outcomes are frequently benchmarked? (ii) What case-mix factors are commonly used for adjustment? (iii) Which statistical approaches are utilized? (iv) How are case-mix models developed and evaluated? Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic scoping review searching OVID MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Eligible studies focused on benchmarking populations with a cancer diagnosis, involved European hospitals, and evaluated health outcomes like survival. Abstract screening and full-text appraisal were done independently by two authors. Data were extracted into a pre-specified matrix, and results synthesized by research question. Results: After screening 4953 abstracts, 65 studies were included. Key gaps include a lack of validated case-mix models, under-representation of long-term outcomes, and a tendency to 'over-adjust' by including treatment factors in case-mix models, potentially obscuring true differences in performance. Regression modeling remains the gold standard for adjustment. A consensus is needed on reporting and evaluating case-mix models, akin to TRIPOD guidelines. Conclusions: A shift toward standardized, validated benchmarking practices is essential to drive health care improvements. Only through rigorous methodologies, standardized reporting, and international collaboration can hospital benchmarking become a transformative tool for improving cancer care quality and patient outcomes.
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.