Literature DB >> 3256304

The value and hazards of standardization in clinical epidemiologic research.

C K Chan1, A R Feinstein, J F Jekel, C K Wells.   

Abstract

The statistical standardization of rates produces a single summary value that converts crude rates of occurrence into "standardized" rates that are adjusted for differences in the composition of compared populations. Although the process is well described in the epidemiologic literature and is regularly applied in comparisons of large populations, many investigators are not familiar with three important hazards that are magnified for the smaller groups studied in clinical epidemiologic research. This report contains a new "symmetrical" outline of the direct and indirect standardization processes, and an illustration of three pragmatic hazards: (1) Because the direct standardizing factor uses the observed stratum-specific rates, and because any stratum-specific rates that depend on small denominators may be misleading or unstable, the indirect method is preferred when the observed strata have small denominators. (2) Both the direct and indirect standardizing methods are highly vulnerable both to the choice of reference population and to the boundaries chosen when strata are demarcated or consolidated. The standardized rates can be altered dramatically according to differences in the stratum proportions of the reference population, or to distinctions produced when standardizing strata are consolidated. (3) If the stratum-specific rates and stratum proportions have different patterns of variation across the strata of the compared groups, the use of a single summary value--no matter what method of standardization is applied--may obscure cogent patterns of variation and significant differences in the stratum-specific rates. These hazards can be overcome if the studied group and the reference population are carefully compared for inconsistent variations in the stratum-specific rates and proportions before any standardizing procedure is applied. In many instances, the best approach may be to compare the unaltered stratum-specific rates, without standardization.

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3256304     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90082-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  7 in total

1.  Supportive evidence for the validity of the epidemiologic necropsy for gallstones.

Authors:  M J McFarlane
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1990 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  National estimates of central line-associated bloodstream infections in critical care patients.

Authors:  Matthew E Wise; R Douglas Scott; James M Baggs; Jonathan R Edwards; Katherine D Ellingson; Scott K Fridkin; L Clifford McDonald; John A Jernigan
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 3.254

3.  The Associations between Evacuation Status and Lifestyle-Related Diseases in Fukushima after the Great East Japan Earthquake: The Fukushima Health Management Survey.

Authors:  Zhichao Sun; Hironori Imano; Eri Eguchi; Fumikazu Hayashi; Tetsuya Ohira; Renzhe Cui; Seiji Yasumura; Akira Sakai; Michio Shimabukuro; Hitoshi Ohto; Kenji Kamiya; Hiroyasu Iso
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 4.614

4.  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

5.  Comparing regression-adjusted mortality to standardized mortality ratios for trauma center profiling.

Authors:  Lynne Moore; James A Hanley; Alexis F Turgeon; André Lavoie
Journal:  J Emerg Trauma Shock       Date:  2012-10

6.  Direct risk standardisation: a new method for comparing casemix adjusted event rates using complex models.

Authors:  Jon Nicholl; Richard M Jacques; Michael J Campbell
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Prevalence of extraintestinal manifestations in Korean inflammatory bowel disease patients.

Authors:  Bo Ram Yang; Nam-Kyong Choi; Mi-Sook Kim; Jaeyoung Chun; Sang Hyun Joo; Hyesung Kim; Joongyub Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.