Can we trust the standardized mortality ratio? A formal analysis and evaluation based on axiomatic requirements
Martin Roessler, Jochen Schmitt, Olaf Schoffer

TL;DR
This paper rigorously analyzes the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) using axiomatic requirements, revealing significant limitations in its ability to reliably compare hospital performance due to violations of key properties.
Contribution
It introduces five axiomatic criteria for evaluating mortality measures and demonstrates that the SMR fails to meet most of these criteria under common standardization methods.
Findings
SMR satisfies only two axioms under external standardization.
SMR fails multiple axioms under internal standardization.
Variations in patient mix and mortality rates affect SMR validity.
Abstract
Background: The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) is often used to assess and compare hospital performance. While it has been recognized that hospitals may differ in their SMRs due to differences in patient composition, there is a lack of rigorous analysis of this and other - largely unrecognized - properties of the SMR. Methods: This paper proposes five axiomatic requirements for adequate standardized mortality measures: strict monotonicity, case-mix insensitivity, scale insensitivity, equivalence principle, and dominance principle. Given these axiomatic requirements, effects of variations in patient composition, hospital size, and actual and expected mortality rates on the SMR were examined using basic algebra and calculus. In this regard, we distinguished between standardization using expected mortality rates derived from a different dataset (external standardization) and…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
