Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 492

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

An Administrative Claims Model Suitable for Profiling Hospital Performance Based on 30-Day Mortality Rates Among Patients With an Acute Myocardial Infarction

Open access
Krumholz, Harlan M., Wang, Yun, Mattera, Jennifer A., Wang, Yongfei, Han, Lein Fang, Ingber, Melvin J., Roman, Sheila, Normand, Sharon-Lise T.·2006·Circulation

Abstract

Background— A model using administrative claims data that is suitable for profiling hospital performance for acute myocardial infarction would be useful in quality assessment and improvement efforts. We sought to develop a hierarchical regression model using Medicare claims data that produces hospital risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates and to validate the hospital estimates against those derived from a medical record model. Methods and Results— For hospital estimates derived from claims data, we developed a derivation model using 140 120 cases discharged from 4664 hospitals in 1998. For the comparison of models from claims data and medical record data, we used the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project database. To determine the stability of the model over time, we used annual Medicare cohorts discharged in 1995, 1997, and 1999–2001. The final model included 27 variables and had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71. In a comparison of the risk-standardized hospital mortality rates from the claims model with those of the medical record model, the correlation coefficient was 0.90 (SE=0.003). The slope of the weighted regression line was 0.95 (SE=0.007), and the intercept was 0.008 (SE=0.001), both indicating strong agreement of the hospital estimates between the 2 data sources. The median difference between the claims-based hospital risk-standardized mortality rates and the chart-based rates was <0.001 (25th and 75th percentiles, −0.003 and 0.003). The performance of the model was stable over time. Conclusions— This administrative claims-based model for profiling hospitals performs consistently over several years and produces estimates of risk-standardized mortality that are good surrogates for estimates from a medical record model.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.105.611186

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

  • The Quality of Care

    Donabedian, A. (1988) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.260.12.1743 · Cited by 5,895

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 492

Metadata

Authors
Krumholz, H. M., Wang, Y., Mattera, J. A., Wang, Y., Han, L. F., Ingber, M. J., Roman, S., & Normand, S.-L. T.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2006-04-04
Volume
113
Issue
13
Pages
1683-1692
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2064951857
Cited by
492
References
1
FWCI
40.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: An Administrative Claims Model Suitable for Profiling Hospital Performance Based on 30-Day Mortality Rates Among Patients With an Acute Myocardial Infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.105.611186
The paper
Krumholz, H. M., Wang, Y., Mattera, J. A., Wang, Y., Han, L. F., Ingber, M. J., Roman, S., & Normand, S.-L. T. (2006). An Administrative Claims Model Suitable for Profiling Hospital Performance Based on 30-Day Mortality Rates Among Patients With an Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.105.611186

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.