Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 168

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reliability Adjustment for Reporting Hospital Outcomes With Surgery

Dimick, Justin B., Ghaferi, Amir A., Osborne, Nicholas H., Ko, Clifford Y., Hall, Bruce L.·2012·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

In Brief Background: Reliability adjustment, a novel technique for quantifying and removing statistical “noise” from quality rankings, is becoming more widely used outside surgery. We sought to evaluate its impact on hospital outcomes assessed with the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). Methods: We used prospective, clinical data from the ACS-NSQIP to identify all patients undergoing colon resection in 2007 (n = 181 hospitals, n = 18,455 patients). We first used standard NSQIP techniques to generate risk-adjusted mortality and morbidity rates for each hospital. Using hierarchical logistic regression models, we then adjusted these for reliability using empirical Bayes techniques. To evaluate the impact of reliability adjustment, we first estimated the extent to which hospital-level variation was reduced. We then compared hospital mortality and morbidity rankings and outlier status before and after reliability adjustment. Results: Reliability adjustment greatly diminished apparent variation in hospital outcomes. For risk-adjusted mortality, there was a 6-fold difference before (1.4%–7.8%) and less than a 2-fold difference (3.2% to 5.7%) after reliability adjustment. For risk-adjusted morbidity, there was a 2-fold difference (18.0%–38.2%) before and a 1.5-fold difference (20.8%–34.8%) after reliability adjustment. Reliability adjustment had a large impact on hospital mortality and morbidity rankings. For example, with rankings based on mortality, 44% (16 hospitals) of the “best” hospitals (top 20%) were reclassified after reliability adjustment. Similarly, 22% (8 hospitals) of the “worst” hospitals (bottom 20%) were reclassified after reliability adjustment. Conclusions: Reliability adjustment reduces variation due to statistical noise and results in more accurate estimates of risk-adjusted hospital outcomes. Given the risk of misclassifying hospitals and surgeons using standard approaches, this technique should be considered when reporting surgical outcomes. We evaluated the impact of reliability adjustment on hospital outcomes assessed with the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). We found that using reliability adjustment to account for statistical “noise” resulted in dramatic changes in apparent hospital performance for colectomy. This technique would be useful to avoid misjudging hospital quality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e31824b46ff

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 168

Metadata

Authors
Dimick, J. B., Ghaferi, A. A., Osborne, N. H., Ko, C. Y., & Hall, B. L.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2012-04
Volume
255
Issue
4
Pages
703-707
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073084758
Cited by
168
References
0
FWCI
21.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability Adjustment for Reporting Hospital Outcomes With Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31824b46ff
The paper
Dimick, J. B., Ghaferi, A. A., Osborne, N. H., Ko, C. Y., & Hall, B. L. (2012). Reliability Adjustment for Reporting Hospital Outcomes With Surgery. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31824b46ff

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.