Hollenbeck Brent K, Birkmeyer John D
Department of Urology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Surg Innov. 2007 Sep;14(3):192-8. doi: 10.1177/1553350607307274.
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)- Medicare data are frequently used for studying relationships between volume and outcomes after cancer surgery; however, because patients often cross SEER boundaries for treatment, SEER-Medicare data may misclassify hospital volume. Thus, we measured the agreement of hospital volume as determined by SEER-Medicare and 100% national Medicare data and determined the extent to which misclassification alters the apparent relationship between volume and operative mortality. This is a retrospective cohort study of SEER-Medicare patients undergoing a major cancer surgery for colon, lung, bladder, and esophageal cancers between 1994 and 1999. Hospital procedure volumes were assessed with both SEER-Medicare and 100% national Medicare data and sorted into terciles. Logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations to assess associations between mortality and volume, as determined from each data source. Compared with 100% Medicare data, SEER-Medicare data misclassified 13% (colectomy) to 36% (esophagectomy) of patients; however, fewer than 3% of patients were misclassified by more than 1 volume stratum. For cystectomy, the apparent association between volume and mortality was relatively weak and not statistically significant based on SEER-Medicare data (adjusted odds ratio, low vs high volume 1.41, 95% confidence interval, 0.89-2.23), but stronger and significant when volume was obtained from 100% Medicare data (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.17 to 2.84). For the other 3 procedures, apparent volume/outcome relationships were similar when volume was assessed from the 2 data sources. Hospital volumes are frequently misclassified with SEER-Medicare data. Such misclassification generally biases volume/outcome associations toward the null, but this effect seems to be small for many procedures. Investigators should be cognizant of this bias and exercise caution when interpreting these relationships when using SEER-Medicare data alone.
监测、流行病学与最终结果(SEER)-医疗保险数据经常用于研究癌症手术后手术量与预后之间的关系;然而,由于患者常常跨越SEER边界接受治疗,SEER-医疗保险数据可能会对医院手术量进行错误分类。因此,我们测量了由SEER-医疗保险数据和100%全国医疗保险数据所确定的医院手术量的一致性,并确定了错误分类在多大程度上改变了手术量与手术死亡率之间的表面关系。这是一项对1994年至1999年间接受结肠癌、肺癌、膀胱癌和食管癌大型癌症手术的SEER-医疗保险患者的回顾性队列研究。使用SEER-医疗保险数据和100%全国医疗保险数据评估医院手术量,并将其分为三分位数。使用广义估计方程拟合逻辑回归模型,以评估每种数据来源所确定的死亡率与手术量之间的关联。与100%医疗保险数据相比,SEER-医疗保险数据对13%(结肠切除术)至36%(食管切除术)的患者进行了错误分类;然而,不到3%的患者被错误分类超过1个手术量分层。对于膀胱切除术,基于SEER-医疗保险数据,手术量与死亡率之间的表面关联相对较弱且无统计学意义(调整后的优势比,低手术量与高手术量相比为1.41,95%置信区间为0.89-2.23),但当手术量来自100%医疗保险数据时则更强且具有统计学意义(优势比为1.82;95%置信区间为1.17至2.84)。对于其他3种手术,当从这两种数据来源评估手术量时,表面的手术量/预后关系相似。医院手术量经常被SEER-医疗保险数据错误分类。这种错误分类通常会使手术量/预后关联偏向无效,但对于许多手术来说,这种影响似乎很小。研究人员在仅使用SEER-医疗保险数据解释这些关系时应认识到这种偏差并谨慎行事。