BACKGROUND: A large body of literature documents associations between the volume of cases a hospital or surgeon treats and clinical outcomes. Most of these studies have used conventional statistical methods that do not recognize the fact that hospitals or surgeons with similar volumes may have very different outcomes because of systematic differences in processes of care, a phenomenon that exaggerates the true statistical significance of the effect of volume on outcome. OBJECTIVE: To describe methods to assess the degree of this "clustering" of outcomes and to explore the impact of available statistical techniques that correct for clustering. DESIGN: Reanalysis of 3 previously published volume-outcome studies. SETTING: Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age or older undergoing surgery for colon, prostate, or rectal cancer in the population defined by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries during 1992 to 1996. PATIENTS: 3 data sets were analyzed to assess the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes: 1) 24 166 colectomies performed by 2682 surgeons, 2) 10 737 prostatectomies performed by 999 surgeons, and 3) 2603 rectal resections performed by 1141 surgeons. MEASUREMENTS: Volume-outcome trends were analyzed by a conventional method (logistic regression) and corrected for clustering. Two widely used statistical methods for analyzing clustered data, a random-effects model and generalized estimating equations, were used and compared, and the degree of clustering was presented graphically. RESULTS: Substantial clustering was observed in the analyses involving morbidity end points. The 2 statistical techniques produced noticeably different results in some analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of clustering represents variations in outcomes among providers with similar volumes. Thus, in volume-outcome studies, the degree of clustering of outcomes should be characterized because it may provide insight into variations in quality of care.
BACKGROUND: A large body of literature documents associations between the volume of cases a hospital or surgeon treats and clinical outcomes. Most of these studies have used conventional statistical methods that do not recognize the fact that hospitals or surgeons with similar volumes may have very different outcomes because of systematic differences in processes of care, a phenomenon that exaggerates the true statistical significance of the effect of volume on outcome. OBJECTIVE: To describe methods to assess the degree of this "clustering" of outcomes and to explore the impact of available statistical techniques that correct for clustering. DESIGN: Reanalysis of 3 previously published volume-outcome studies. SETTING: Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age or older undergoing surgery for colon, prostate, or rectal cancer in the population defined by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries during 1992 to 1996. PATIENTS: 3 data sets were analyzed to assess the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes: 1) 24 166 colectomies performed by 2682 surgeons, 2) 10 737 prostatectomies performed by 999 surgeons, and 3) 2603 rectal resections performed by 1141 surgeons. MEASUREMENTS: Volume-outcome trends were analyzed by a conventional method (logistic regression) and corrected for clustering. Two widely used statistical methods for analyzing clustered data, a random-effects model and generalized estimating equations, were used and compared, and the degree of clustering was presented graphically. RESULTS: Substantial clustering was observed in the analyses involving morbidity end points. The 2 statistical techniques produced noticeably different results in some analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of clustering represents variations in outcomes among providers with similar volumes. Thus, in volume-outcome studies, the degree of clustering of outcomes should be characterized because it may provide insight into variations in quality of care.
Authors: Jan Schmitges; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Marco Bianchi; Maxine Sun; Firas Abdollah; Sascha A Ahyai; Claudio Jeldres; Thomas Steuber; Paul Perrotte; Shahrokh F Shariat; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Amber E Barnato; Zekarias Berhane; Lisa A Weissfeld; Chung-Chou H Chang; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Derek C Angus Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Chu-Lin Tsai; Ashley F Sullivan; James A Gordon; Rainu Kaushal; David J Magid; David Blumenthal; Carlos A Camargo Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Marco Bianchi; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Maxine Sun; Malek Meskawi; Jan Schmitges; Shahrokh F Shariat; Alberto Briganti; Zhe Tian; Claudio Jeldres; Shyam Sukumar; James O Peabody; Markus Graefen; Paul Perrotte; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Ateev Mehrotra; Elizabeth M Sloss; Peter S Hussey; John L Adams; Susan Lovejoy; Nelson F Soohoo Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.983