Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 158

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity of Selected AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators Based on VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Data

Open access
Romano, Patrick S., Mull, Hillary J., Rivard, Peter E., Zhao, Shibei, Henderson, William G., Loveland, Susan, Tsilimingras, Dennis, Christiansen, Cindy L., Rosen, Amy K.·2009·Health Services Research

Abstract

Objectives. To examine the criterion validity of the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) using clinical data from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). Data Sources. Fifty five thousand seven hundred and fifty two matched hospitalizations from 2001 VA inpatient surgical discharge data and NSQIP chart‐abstracted data. Study Design. We examined the sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPVs), and positive likelihood ratios of five surgical PSIs that corresponded to NSQIP adverse events. We created and tested alternative definitions of each PSI. Data Collection. FY01 inpatient discharge data were merged with 2001 NSQIP data abstracted from medical records for major noncardiac surgeries. Principal Findings. Sensitivities were 19–56 percent for original PSI definitions; and 37–63 percent using alternative PSI definitions. PPVs were 22–74 percent and did not improve with modifications. Positive likelihood ratios were 65–524 using original definitions, and 64–744 using alternative definitions. “Postoperative respiratory failure” and “postoperative wound dehiscence” exhibited significant increases in sensitivity after modifications. Conclusions. PSI sensitivities and PPVs were moderate. For three of the five PSIs, AHRQ has incorporated our alternative, higher sensitivity definitions into current PSI algorithms. Further validation should be considered before most of the PSIs evaluated herein are used to publicly compare or reward hospital performance.

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 · 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00905.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 158

Metadata

Authors
Romano, P. S., Mull, H. J., Rivard, P. E., Zhao, S., Henderson, W. G., Loveland, S., Tsilimingras, D., Christiansen, C. L., & Rosen, A. K.
Venue
Health Services Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-15
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
182-204
ISSN
  • 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-6773
OpenAlex
W2025486978
Cited by
158
References
1
FWCI
29.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Validity of Selected AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators Based on VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00905.x
The paper
Romano, P. S., Mull, H. J., Rivard, P. E., Zhao, S., Henderson, W. G., Loveland, S., Tsilimingras, D., Christiansen, C. L., & Rosen, A. K. (2009). Validity of Selected AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators Based on VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Data. Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00905.x

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.