• 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

扩大清晰度还是混淆?美国评估移植中心质量的 5 级评级的波动性。

Expanding clarity or confusion? Volatility of the 5-tier ratings assessing quality of transplant centers in the United States.

机构信息

Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.

出版信息

Am J Transplant. 2018 Jun;18(6):1494-1501. doi: 10.1111/ajt.14659. Epub 2018 Feb 9.

DOI:10.1111/ajt.14659
PMID:29316241
Abstract

Outcomes of patients receiving solid organ transplants in the United States are systematically aggregated into bi-annual Program-Specific Reports (PSRs) detailing risk-adjusted survival by transplant center. Recently, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) issued 5-tier ratings evaluating centers based on risk-adjusted 1-year graft survival. Our primary aim was to examine the reliability of 5-tier ratings over time. Using 10 consecutive PSRs for adult kidney transplant centers from June 2012 to December 2016 (n = 208), we applied 5-tier ratings to center outcomes and evaluated ratings over time. From the baseline period (June 2012), 47% of centers had at least a 1-unit tier change within 6 months, 66% by 1 year, and 94% by 3 years. Similarly, 46% of centers had at least a 2-unit tier change by 3 years. In comparison, 15% of centers had a change in the traditional 3-tier rating at 3 years. The 5-tier ratings at 4 years had minimal association with baseline rating (Kappa 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.002 to 0.158). Centers had a median of 3 different 5-tier ratings over the period (q1 = 2, q3 = 4). Findings were consistent for center volume, transplant rate, and baseline 5-tier rating. Cumulatively, results suggest that 5-tier ratings are highly volatile, limiting their utility for informing potential stakeholders, particularly transplant candidates given expected waiting times between wait listing and transplantation.

摘要

美国接受实体器官移植的患者的结果被系统地汇总到每两年一次的特定项目报告(PSR)中,详细说明了按移植中心调整风险的生存情况。最近,移植受者科学登记处(SRTR)根据风险调整后的 1 年移植物存活率发布了 5 级评分,用于评估中心。我们的主要目的是研究 5 级评分随时间的可靠性。使用 2012 年 6 月至 2016 年 12 月连续 10 份成人肾脏移植中心的 PSR(n=208),我们将 5 级评分应用于中心结果,并评估了随时间的评分。从基线期(2012 年 6 月)开始,6 个月内至少有 47%的中心在级别上发生了 1 个单位的变化,1 年内有 66%的中心发生了变化,3 年内有 94%的中心发生了变化。同样,46%的中心在 3 年内至少有 2 个单位的级别变化。相比之下,15%的中心在 3 年内的传统 3 级评分发生了变化。4 年的 5 级评分与基线评分相关性最小(Kappa 值为 0.07,95%置信区间[CI]为 0.002 至 0.158)。在整个期间,中心的 5 级评分中位数有 3 个不同的评分(q1=2,q3=4)。这些发现与中心容量、移植率和基线 5 级评分一致。结果表明,5 级评分非常不稳定,限制了其为潜在利益相关者提供信息的效用,特别是对于等待名单和移植之间有预期等待时间的移植候选人。

相似文献

1
Expanding clarity or confusion? Volatility of the 5-tier ratings assessing quality of transplant centers in the United States.扩大清晰度还是混淆?美国评估移植中心质量的 5 级评级的波动性。
Am J Transplant. 2018 Jun;18(6):1494-1501. doi: 10.1111/ajt.14659. Epub 2018 Feb 9.
2
Public Reporting of Heart Transplant Center Performance: Promoting Clarity or Causing Confusion?心脏移植中心绩效的公开报告:是促进了透明度还是引起了混淆?
JACC Heart Fail. 2024 Jul;12(7):1274-1283. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2024.01.021. Epub 2024 Apr 10.
3
Comparing Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients posttransplant program-specific outcome ratings at listing with subsequent recipient outcomes after transplant.比较移植受者注册处(SRTR)移植前特定项目结局评分与移植后受者结局。
Am J Transplant. 2019 Feb;19(2):391-398. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15038. Epub 2018 Aug 31.
4
Reported effects of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients 5-tier rating system on US transplant centers: results of a national survey.报告的器官移植受者科学注册系统 5 级评分系统对美国移植中心的影响:全国调查结果。
Transpl Int. 2018 Oct;31(10):1135-1143. doi: 10.1111/tri.13282. Epub 2018 Jun 10.
5
Association of pretransplant and posttransplant program ratings with candidate mortality after listing.移植前和移植后项目评分与候选者列名后的死亡率的相关性。
Am J Transplant. 2019 Feb;19(2):399-406. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15032. Epub 2018 Aug 21.
6
The association of candidate mortality rates with kidney transplant outcomes and center performance evaluations.候选死亡率与肾移植结果及中心绩效评估之间的关联。
Transplantation. 2008 Jan 15;85(1):1-6. doi: 10.1097/01.tp.0000297372.51408.c2.
7
Association of Heart Transplant Volume with Presence of Lung Transplant Programs and Heart Transplant's SRTR One-year Survival Rating.心脏移植量与肺移植项目的存在以及心脏移植 SRTR 一年生存率的关系。
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024 Jun;72(4):261-265. doi: 10.1055/a-2095-6636. Epub 2023 May 17.
8
A Five-Tier System for Improving the Categorization of Transplant Program Performance.提高移植项目绩效分类的五级系统。
Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun;53(3):1979-1991. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12726. Epub 2017 Jun 13.
9
Association between kidney transplant center performance and the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis.肾移植中心的表现与移植相对于透析的生存获益之间的关联。
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 Oct 7;9(10):1773-80. doi: 10.2215/CJN.02380314. Epub 2014 Sep 18.
10
Potential Implications of Recent and Proposed Changes in the Regulatory Oversight of Solid Organ Transplantation in the United States.美国实体器官移植监管监督方面近期及拟议变更的潜在影响。
Am J Transplant. 2016 Dec;16(12):3371-3377. doi: 10.1111/ajt.13955. Epub 2016 Jul 28.

引用本文的文献

1
Impact of Extending Eligibility for Reinstatement of Waiting Time After Early Allograft Failure: A Decision Analysis.早期移植物失败后等待时间恢复资格延长的影响:决策分析。
Am J Kidney Dis. 2022 Mar;79(3):354-361. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.07.023. Epub 2021 Sep 22.
2
High Dimensional Renal Profiling: Towards a Better Understanding or Renal Transplant Immune Suppression.高维肾脏分析:迈向对肾移植免疫抑制的更好理解
Curr Transplant Rep. 2019 Mar;6(1):60-68. doi: 10.1007/s40472-019-0225-1. Epub 2019 Jan 14.
3
The relationship between the C-statistic and the accuracy of program-specific evaluations.
C 统计量与特定方案评估准确性的关系。
Am J Transplant. 2019 Feb;19(2):407-413. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15132. Epub 2018 Oct 29.
4
Seeking new answers to old questions about public reporting of transplant program performance in the United States.探寻美国移植项目绩效公众报告中旧问题的新答案。
Am J Transplant. 2019 Feb;19(2):317-323. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15051. Epub 2018 Sep 6.
5
Comparing Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients posttransplant program-specific outcome ratings at listing with subsequent recipient outcomes after transplant.比较移植受者注册处(SRTR)移植前特定项目结局评分与移植后受者结局。
Am J Transplant. 2019 Feb;19(2):391-398. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15038. Epub 2018 Aug 31.