REVIEW PAPERNational Quality Forum Guidelines for Evaluating the Scientific Acceptability of Risk-adjusted Clinical Outcome Measures A Report From the National Quality Forum Scientific Methods PanelGlance, Laurent G. MD*,†; Joynt Maddox, Karen MD‡; Johnson, Karen MS§; Nerenz, David PhD¶; Cella, David PhD||; Borah, Bijan PhD**; Kunisch, Joseph PhD††; Kurlansky, Paul MD‡‡; Perloff, Jennifer PhD§§; Stoto, Michael PhD¶¶; Walters, Ronald MD||||; White, Susan PhD***; Lin, Zhenquiu PhD†††Author Information *University of Rochester, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Rochester, NY †RAND, RAND Health, Boston, MA ‡Washington University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri §National Quality Forum, Washington, D.C. ¶Henry Ford Health System, Center for Health Policy and Health Services Research, Detroit, MI ||Northwestern University, Department of Medical Social Sciences, Chicago, IL **Mayo Clinic, Center for the Science for Health Care Delivery, Rochester, MN ††Memorial Hermann Health System, Clinical Quality Informatics, Houston, TX ‡‡Columbia University, Center for Innovations and Outcomes Research, NY, NY §§Brandeis University, Institute of Healthcare Systems, Waltham, MA ¶¶Georgetown University, Health Systems Administration and Population Health, Washington, D.C. ||||University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Medial Operations Informatics, Houston, TX ***The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH †††Yale-New Haven Hospital, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, CT. Laurent_Glance@urmc.rochester.edu. National Quality Forum Scientific Methods Panel Members: J. Matt Austin, John Bott, Lacy Fabian, Marybeth Farquhar, Jeffrey Geppert, Paul Gerrard, Stephen Horner, Sherrie Kaplan, Jack Needleman, Eugene Nuccio, Sam Simon, Christine Teigland. Dr. Maddox performed contract work for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Lin works under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures that are publicly reported. The authors report no conflicts of interest. Online date: December 9, 2019 Annals of Surgery: June 2020 - Volume 271 - Issue 6 - p 1048-1055 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003592 Buy Metrics Abstract Quality measurement is at the heart of efforts to achieve high-quality surgical and medical care at a lower cost. Without accurate quality measures, it is not possible to appropriately align incentives with quality. The aim of these National Quality Forum (NQF) guidelines is to provide measure developers and other stakeholders with guidance on the standards used by the NQF to evaluate the scientific acceptability of performance measures. Using a methodologically rigorous and transparent process for evaluating health care quality measures is the best insurance that alternative payment plans will truly reward and promote higher quality care. Performance measures need to be credible in order for physicians and hospitals to willingly partner with payers in efforts to improve population outcomes. Our goal in creating this position paper is to promote the transparency of NQF evaluations, improve the quality of performance measurements, and engage surgeons and all other stakeholders to work together to advance the science of performance measurement. Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.