ArticleHealth economics2026
Case-Mix Adjustment of Multidimensional Patient-Reported Outcomes to Assess Hospital Performance.
Article in Health economics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to compare the performance of health care providers. Meaningful comparisons require the data to be adjusted for differences in case-mix. The common approach in the literature is to aggregate PROM data into univariate summary scores prior to case-mix adjustment. In this paper, we extend the work by McCarthy (2015, 2016) to develop a dimension-specific adjustment methodology for performance assessment. This method permits to model the influence of patient characteristics separately for each dimension while retaining the maximum amount of information to inform different stakeholders. We conduct a simulation study to compare the performance of both methods in terms of their ability to identify provider performance, and to identify context-specific factors that should guide the choice of methodology in applied research. We follow this up with a real-world case study of knee replacement surgery in the English NHS. We find that the domain-specific approach outperforms the summary score approach in most cases but the differences are small. We conclude that the choice of method ought to consider not just performance but also ease of implementation and retention of decision-relevant granular information.
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.