
There is little agreement on the philosophy of measuring clinical quality in health care. How data should be analyzed and transformed to healthcare information is an ongoing discussion. To accept a difference in quality between health departments as a real difference, one should consider to which extent the selection of patients, random variation, confounding and inconsistency may have influenced results. The aim of this article is to summarize aspects of clinical healthcare data analyses provided from the national clinical quality databases and to show how data may be presented in a way which is understandable to readers without specialised knowledge of statistics.
Internet, Databases, Factual, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Data Collection, Denmark, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Registries, Selection Bias, Quality Indicators, Health Care
Internet, Databases, Factual, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Data Collection, Denmark, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Registries, Selection Bias, Quality Indicators, Health Care
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
