ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2026
Assessing the real-world value of hemophilia care: how suitable are patient-centered outcomes for hospital-level comparisons?
Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHospital-level comparisons of patient-centered outcomes play a central role in value-based healthcare. In hemophilia care, several standardized sets of patient-centered outcomes have been developed to foster the implementation of value-based healthcare; however, their suitability for hospital-level comparisons has not yet been assessed. Therefore, we evaluated the suitability of patient-centered outcomes for hospital-level comparisons in hemophilia care.
methodsWe analyzed data from 807 adults with hemophilia enrolled in the 2019 HiN-6 study in the Netherlands. Twelve patient-centered outcomes were assessed. The suitability of these outcomes for hospital comparisons was evaluated using two criteria: (i) sensitivity to case mix, evaluated by Spearman's rank correlation between case-mix-adjusted and case-mix-unadjusted hospital-level scores and (ii) reliability of between-hospital differences, determined by rankability defined as the proportion of between-hospital variation not attributable to chance. High correlations indicate a minimal case-mix influence, while a high rankability reflects a high degree of reliability.
resultsMost patient-centered outcomes were relatively insensitive to case mix (ρ > 0.70). Reliability of hospital differences was generally low (rankability <0.50). Only the annual bleeding rate and annual joint bleeding rate demonstrated moderate reliability with a rankability of 0.55 and 0.58, respectively.
conclusionMost patient-centered outcomes assessed were not suitable for comparing hemophilia care at the hospital level because of low reliability. Among the outcomes evaluated, the annual bleeding rate and annual joint bleeding rate appeared relatively more suitable for such comparisons.
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.