Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparing risk-adjustment methods for provider profiling

E R DeLong1, E D Peterson, D M DeLong

  • 1Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Department of Medicine, Durham, NC 27705-4667, USA.

Statistics in Medicine
|January 9, 1998
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Reading for wellbeing: a realist review of evidence.

Perspectives in public health·2025
Same author

Survival Outcomes Following Discontinuation of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab for Advanced Melanoma in a Population-based Cohort.

Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain))·2021
Same author

Anaesthesia for pneumonectomy.

BJA education·2021
Same author

Investment in attending to cues and the evolution of amplifiers.

Journal of evolutionary biology·2016
Same author

Anaphylaxis and ethnicity: higher incidence in British South Asians.

Allergy·2015
Same author

Sub-Nyquist field trial using time frequency packed DP-QPSK super-channel within fixed ITU-T grid.

Optics express·2015
Same journal

Interpretable Bayesian Modeling for Multireader Multicase Studies: Addressing Overdispersion and Limited Sample Size in Diagnostic Enhancement Evaluation.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Adaptive Sequential Multiple Hypotheses Testing for Concomitant Vaccine Safety Surveillance.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Novel Distance Regression for Repeated Outcomes With Missing Data: Applications to Longitudinal and Crossover Studies of Microbiome Beta-Diversity.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Optimal Weighted Tests for Replication Studies and the 'Two-Trials Rule' With Multiple Hypotheses.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Identifiable Copula-Double-Cox Models: A Fully Parametric Framework for Dependent Right-Censored Survival Data.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Moving From Individualized Risk-Based Prevention to Benefit-Based Prevention: Estimating Individualized Life-Years Gained From Prevention Services as a Basis for Eligibility.

Statistics in medicine·2026
See all related articles

This study compares eight risk-adjustment methods for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) quality assessment. It evaluates how different methods identify provider performance and outlier status for in-hospital mortality.

Area of Science:

  • Health Services Research
  • Medical Quality Improvement
  • Cardiovascular Surgery Outcomes

Background:

  • Risk-adjustment and provider profiling are crucial for assessing healthcare quality and value.
  • Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) quality assessment is well-developed, with extensive study of in-hospital mortality.
  • Existing risk-adjustment mechanisms are used for provider profiling in CABG surgery.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To develop a common metric for displaying risk-adjustment results for dichotomous outcomes like in-hospital mortality.
  • To compare how various risk-adjustment methods quantify provider outlier status.
  • To evaluate eight distinct risk-adjustment methodologies in a CABG surgery population.

Main Methods:

  • Comparison of eight risk-adjustment methods applied to 28 CABG providers.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Utilizing five external risk-adjustment algorithms developed in independent populations.
  • Employing three internally developed logistic models for risk adjustment.

    • Main Results:

    • Demonstration of applying risk-adjustment methods to a quality improvement dataset.
    • Presentation of results comparing external and internal risk-adjustment algorithms.
    • Analysis of how different methods quantify provider performance and outlier status.

    Conclusions:

    • The study provides a framework for comparing risk-adjustment methodologies in CABG surgery.
    • Findings aid in understanding the impact of different risk-adjustment approaches on provider profiling.
    • Results contribute to refining quality assessment and value measurement in cardiovascular care.