• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

基于单一层次逻辑回归模型推导医院标准化死亡率比的四种方法比较

Comparison of four methods for deriving hospital standardised mortality ratios from a single hierarchical logistic regression model.

作者信息

Mohammed Mohammed A, Manktelow Bradley N, Hofer Timothy P

机构信息

Primary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

出版信息

Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Apr;25(2):706-15. doi: 10.1177/0962280212465165. Epub 2012 Nov 6.

DOI:10.1177/0962280212465165
PMID:23136148
Abstract

There is interest in deriving case-mix adjusted standardised mortality ratios so that comparisons between healthcare providers, such as hospitals, can be undertaken in the controversial belief that variability in standardised mortality ratios reflects quality of care. Typically standardised mortality ratios are derived using a fixed effects logistic regression model, without a hospital term in the model. This fails to account for the hierarchical structure of the data - patients nested within hospitals - and so a hierarchical logistic regression model is more appropriate. However, four methods have been advocated for deriving standardised mortality ratios from a hierarchical logistic regression model, but their agreement is not known and neither do we know which is to be preferred. We found significant differences between the four types of standardised mortality ratios because they reflect a range of underlying conceptual issues. The most subtle issue is the distinction between asking how an average patient fares in different hospitals versus how patients at a given hospital fare at an average hospital. Since the answers to these questions are not the same and since the choice between these two approaches is not obvious, the extent to which profiling hospitals on mortality can be undertaken safely and reliably, without resolving these methodological issues, remains questionable.

摘要

人们对于得出病例组合调整后的标准化死亡率很感兴趣,这样一来,就可以对医疗服务提供者(如医院)之间进行比较,基于一种存在争议的观点,即标准化死亡率的差异反映了医疗质量。通常,标准化死亡率是使用固定效应逻辑回归模型得出的,模型中没有医院项。这未能考虑到数据的层次结构——患者嵌套在医院之中——因此层次逻辑回归模型更为合适。然而,有四种方法被提倡用于从层次逻辑回归模型中得出标准化死亡率,但它们之间的一致性尚不清楚,我们也不知道哪种方法更可取。我们发现这四种类型的标准化死亡率之间存在显著差异,因为它们反映了一系列潜在的概念性问题。最微妙的问题是,询问普通患者在不同医院的情况与询问特定医院的患者在普通医院的情况之间的区别。由于这两个问题的答案不同,而且在这两种方法之间做出选择并不明显,在不解决这些方法学问题的情况下,在多大程度上能够安全可靠地对医院死亡率进行剖析仍然存在疑问。

相似文献

1
Comparison of four methods for deriving hospital standardised mortality ratios from a single hierarchical logistic regression model.基于单一层次逻辑回归模型推导医院标准化死亡率比的四种方法比较
Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Apr;25(2):706-15. doi: 10.1177/0962280212465165. Epub 2012 Nov 6.
2
Classifying hospitals as mortality outliers: logistic versus hierarchical logistic models.将医院分类为死亡率异常值:逻辑回归模型与分层逻辑回归模型
J Med Syst. 2014 May;38(5):29. doi: 10.1007/s10916-014-0029-x. Epub 2014 Apr 8.
3
Risk adjustment in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: a comparison of logistic versus hierarchical modeling.美国外科医师学会国家手术质量改进计划中的风险调整:逻辑与层次模型的比较。
J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Dec;209(6):687-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.08.020. Epub 2009 Oct 17.
4
The US hospital standardised mortality ratio: Retrospective database study of Massachusetts hospitals.美国医院标准化死亡率:对马萨诸塞州医院的回顾性数据库研究。
JRSM Open. 2015 Jan 19;6(1):2054270414559083. doi: 10.1177/2054270414559083. eCollection 2015 Jan.
5
Evidence of methodological bias in hospital standardised mortality ratios: retrospective database study of English hospitals.医院标准化死亡率比值中方法学偏倚的证据:对英国医院的回顾性数据库研究
BMJ. 2009 Mar 18;338:b780. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b780.
6
[Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution].[意大利关于空气污染短期影响研究的荟萃分析]
Epidemiol Prev. 2001 Mar-Apr;25(2 Suppl):1-71.
7
Logistic versus hierarchical modeling: an analysis of a statewide inpatient sample.逻辑斯蒂与层次模型:全州住院患者样本分析。
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Sep;213(3):392-401. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.06.423. Epub 2011 Jul 23.
8
Comparison of "risk-adjusted" hospital outcomes.“风险调整后”医院治疗结果的比较。
Circulation. 2008 Apr 15;117(15):1955-63. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.747873. Epub 2008 Apr 7.
9
The CRIB (clinical risk index for babies) score: a tool for assessing initial neonatal risk and comparing performance of neonatal intensive care units. The International Neonatal Network.CRIB(婴儿临床风险指数)评分:一种评估新生儿初始风险及比较新生儿重症监护病房绩效的工具。国际新生儿网络。
Lancet. 1993 Jul 24;342(8865):193-8.
10
Differences in case-mix can influence the comparison of standardised mortality ratios even with optimal risk adjustment: an analysis of data from paediatric intensive care.病例组合差异即使在最佳风险调整后也会影响标准化死亡率比的比较:儿科重症监护数据的分析。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Sep;23(9):782-8. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002608. Epub 2014 May 19.

引用本文的文献

1
Factors associated with regional differences in healthcare quality for patients with acute myocardial infarction in Japan.日本急性心肌梗死患者医疗质量地区差异的相关因素。
PLoS One. 2025 Apr 16;20(4):e0319179. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319179. eCollection 2025.
2
Benchmarking broad-spectrum antibiotic use in older adult pneumonia inpatients: a risk-adjusted smoothed observed-to-expected ratio approach.老年成人肺炎住院患者广谱抗生素使用的基准评估:一种风险调整后的平滑观察与预期比率方法。
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2025 Feb 17;46(4):1-6. doi: 10.1017/ice.2025.5.
3
The Evaluation of Hospitalist Care for Patients with Aspiration Pneumonia Using Risk-adjusted Performance Indicators Developed from a Nationwide Inpatient Database.
使用从全国住院患者数据库开发的风险调整绩效指标评估医院医师对吸入性肺炎患者的治疗效果。
Intern Med. 2025 Apr 1;64(7):1031-1039. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.3653-24. Epub 2024 Nov 6.
4
Neonatologist staffing is related to the inter-hospital variation of risk-adjusted mortality of very low birth weight infants in Korea.新生儿科医生人力配备与韩国极低出生体重儿风险调整死亡率的医院间差异有关。
Sci Rep. 2024 Sep 9;14(1):20959. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-69680-1.
5
Do Common Risk Adjustment Methods Do Their Job Well If Center Effects Are Correlated With the Center-Specific Mean Values of Patient Characteristics?如果中心效应与患者特征的中心特异性均值相关,常见的风险调整方法能否很好地发挥作用?
Med Care. 2024 Nov 1;62(11):773-781. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000002008. Epub 2024 May 29.
6
Measuring and monitoring patient safety in hospitals in the Republic of Ireland.爱尔兰共和国医院的患者安全测量和监测。
Ir J Med Sci. 2023 Dec;192(6):2581-2593. doi: 10.1007/s11845-023-03336-3. Epub 2023 Mar 22.
7
Outlier identification and monitoring of institutional or clinician performance: an overview of statistical methods and application to national audit data.离群值识别和机构或临床医生绩效监测:统计方法概述及其在国家审计数据中的应用。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Jan 10;23(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08995-z.
8
Medium-term impacts of the waves of the COVID-19 epidemic on treatments for non-COVID-19 patients in intensive care units: A retrospective cohort study in Japan.COVID-19 疫情浪潮对重症监护病房中非 COVID-19 患者治疗的中期影响:日本的一项回顾性队列研究。
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 26;17(9):e0273952. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273952. eCollection 2022.
9
Acknowledging the role of patient heterogeneity in hospital outcome reporting: Mortality after acute myocardial infarction in five European countries.承认患者异质性在医院结局报告中的作用:五个欧洲国家的急性心肌梗死患者死亡率。
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 6;15(2):e0228425. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228425. eCollection 2020.
10
Observed to expected or logistic regression to identify hospitals with high or low 30-day mortality?观察到的与预期的或逻辑回归以确定 30 天死亡率高或低的医院?
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 13;13(4):e0195248. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195248. eCollection 2018.