Ai Feedback
Exact(6)
The number of CPC measures reported was negatively associated with both CPC and HCAHPS scores, which translated to a net negative effect on the VBP score.
The average number of CPC measures reported was 9.7, with lesser mean number of CPC measures reported for 4th quartile than the 1st quartile (9.32 vs. 9.76).
The number of CPC measures reported was negatively associated with the mean VBP score, and as the QR estimates suggest this effect increased monotonically from lower to higher quantiles of the VBP score.
The total number of CPC measures reported was significantly inversely associated with the mean VBP score, and this effect was increasingly more pronounced going from lower to upper quantiles of the VBP distribution.
The direction of the relative measures reported was consistent, although the magnitude of the hazard rate ratios differed, depending on whether the studies examined light, moderate or heavy smokers, or all smokers combined.
As Figure 1 shows, the quantile effects of the number of CPC measures reported was less than the mean effect in the lower tail of the VBP score distribution; however, the effect was substantially higher than the mean effects in the upper tail.
Similar(54)
However, the summary measures reported are not always explicitly presented and therefore different indirect methods of extracting estimates have been proposed.
In addition, firms typically use more than one performance measure the mean (median) number of measures reported is 1.94 (2.00).
The types of VKA control measures reported were also extracted from each study.
However, we would like to emphasise that while we recommend multiple measures be reported, we are by no means suggesting that the quantity of measures reported is more important than the quality of the measures.
Moreover, the outcome measures reported were of little clinical interest, with the exception of measures of swelling following acute ankle sprain in college-aged patients.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com