Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance
Abstract
‘Funnel plots’ are recommended as a graphical aid for institutional comparisons, in which an estimate of an underlying quantity is plotted against an interpretable measure of its precision. ‘Control limits’ form a funnel around the target outcome, in a close analogy to standard Shewhart control charts. Examples are given for comparing proportions and changes in rates, assessing association between outcome and volume of cases, and dealing with over‐dispersion due to unmeasured risk factors. We conclude that funnel plots are flexible, attractively simple, and avoid spurious ranking of institutions into ‘league tables’. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The rank of an institution is one of the most difficult quantities to estimate.
“showing again that the rank of an institution is one of the most difficult quantities to estimate (Spiegelhalter, 2005).”
From Simultaneous confidence intervals for ranks with application to ranking institutions (2022) · cites this paper as Spiegelhalter, 2005
Each (sub-)area can be considered as performing a parallel experiment on different subjects.
“Indeed each (sub-)area can be considered as performing a parallel experiment on different subjects (Sun 2011; Spiegelhalter 2005).”
From Do They Agree? Bibliometric Evaluation versus Informed Peer Review in the Italian Research Assessment Exercise (2016) · cites this paper as Spiegelhalter 2005
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 832
- Authors
- Spiegelhalter, D. J.
- Affiliations
- MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Spiegelhalter, David J.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-11-29
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1185-1202
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2148621962
- Cited by
- 832
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 38
- FWCI
- 13.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- funnel plot, control limits, Shewhart control charts, proportion, rate changes, overdispersion, league tables
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Coronary Artery Bypass, Biometry, Cross-Sectional Studies, England, Female, Cardiac Surgical Procedures, Humans, Infant, Pregnancy, Pregnancy in Adolescence, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Risk Factors, Odds Ratio, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
