Literature DB >> 21784667

Logistic versus hierarchical modeling: an analysis of a statewide inpatient sample.

Roxana Alexandrescu1, Min-Hua Jen, Alex Bottle, Brian Jarman, Paul Aylin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although logistic regression is traditionally used to calculate hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR), it ignores the hierarchical structure of the data that can exist within a given database. Hierarchical models allow examination of the effect of data clustering on outcomes. STUDY
DESIGN: Traditional logistic regression and random intercepts fixed slopes hierarchical models were fitted to a dataset of patients hospitalized between 2005 and 2007 in Massachusetts. We compared the observed to expected (O/E) in-hospital death ratios between the 2 modeling techniques, a restricted HSMR using only those diagnosis models that converged in both methods and a full hybrid HSMR using a combination of the hierarchical diagnosis models when they converge, plus the remaining diagnoses using standard logistic regression models.
RESULTS: We restricted the analysis to the 36 diagnoses accounting for 80% of in-hospital deaths nationally, based on 1,043,813 admissions (59 hospitals). A failure of the hierarchical models to converge in 15 of 36 diagnosis groups hindered full HSMR comparisons. A restricted HSMR, derived from a dataset based on the 21 diagnosis groups that converged (552,933 admissions) showed very high correlation (Pearson r = 0.99). Both traditional logistic regression and hierarchical model identified 12 statistical outliers in common, 7 with high O/E values and 5 with low O/E values. In addition, the multilevel analysis identified 5 additional unique high outliers and 1 additional unique low outlier, and the conventional model identified 2 additional unique low outliers.
CONCLUSIONS: Similar results were obtained from the 2 modeling techniques in terms of O/E ratios. However, because a hierarchical model is associated with convergence problems, traditional logistic regression remains our recommended procedure for computing HSMRs.
Copyright © 2011 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21784667     DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.06.423

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  6 in total

1.  Classifying hospitals as mortality outliers: logistic versus hierarchical logistic models.

Authors:  Roxana Alexandrescu; Alex Bottle; Brian Jarman; Paul Aylin
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  The US hospital standardised mortality ratio: Retrospective database study of Massachusetts hospitals.

Authors:  Roxana Alexandrescu; Alex Bottle; Min Hua Jen; Brian Jarman; Paul Aylin
Journal:  JRSM Open       Date:  2015-01-19

3.  Fixed effects modelling for provider mortality outcomes: Analysis of the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Adult Patient Data-base.

Authors:  John L Moran; Patricia J Solomon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Observed to expected or logistic regression to identify hospitals with high or low 30-day mortality?

Authors:  Doris Tove Kristoffersen; Jon Helgeland; Jocelyne Clench-Aas; Petter Laake; Marit B Veierød
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Multi-level models for heart failure patients' 30-day mortality and readmission rates: the relation between patient and hospital factors in administrative data.

Authors:  Afsaneh Roshanghalb; Cristina Mazzali; Emanuele Lettieri
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Cross-classified Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA) to evaluate hospital performance: the case of hospital differences in patient survival after acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Merida Rodriguez-Lopez; Juan Merlo; Raquel Perez-Vicente; Peter Austin; George Leckie
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.