ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Clinician validation of the Medicare measure for potentially avoidable hospital visits after chemotherapies.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedicare's OP-35 measure (the 35th hospital outpatient quality measure) tracks unplanned hospital visits within 30 days of chemotherapy and defines a subset as "potentially avoidable" using approximately 300 diagnosis codes. Despite widespread adoption in policy and oncology quality reporting, the measure has not been validated with clinician review.
methodsWe identified 14 220 acute hospital visits within 30 days of chemotherapy (2016-2023) from 22 hospitals in 3 health systems (academic, safety-net, community). A 5% stratified random sample of 705 visits underwent blinded review by 3 clinicians, who adjudicated avoidability and assigned a clinical classification for each visit (eg, nonemergent care occurring overnight, nonurgent blood product transfusion, uncontrolled symptoms requiring hospital care). The gold standard definition for an avoidable visit was based on a majority of the clinicians. We assessed the diagnostic characteristics of OP-35 using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under receiver operator curve (AUROC). We used the clinical classifications to develop a new set of Actionable Categories of avoidability and assessed its diagnostic characteristics.
resultsClinicians judged 30.2% (213/705) of visits as avoidable. OP-35 classified a similar proportion (30.8%, 217/705), but agreement was low. Sensitivity of OP-35 was 34.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 28.2% to 41.6%), specificity 70.9% (95% CI = 66.7% to 74.8%), and accuracy 59.9% (95% CI = 56.2% to 63.6%), with AUROC of 0.53. The Actionable Categories classification performed better: sensitivity 89.7%, specificity 85.2%, accuracy 86.5%, and AUROC 0.87.
conclusionsOP-35 showed poor agreement with clinicians for avoidable hospital visits, raising concerns about its clinical validity. An alternative classification system grouping visits into actionable clinical scenarios offered superior diagnostic accuracy.
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.