Show simple item record

Methods for comparing center‐specific survival outcomes using direct standardization

dc.contributor.authorHe, Kevinen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchaubel, Douglas E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-23T15:59:23Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHSen_US
dc.date.available2014-05-23T15:59:23Z
dc.date.issued2014-05-30en_US
dc.identifier.citationHe, Kevin; Schaubel, Douglas E. (2014). "Methods for comparing center‐specific survival outcomes using direct standardization." Statistics in Medicine 33(12): 2048-2061.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0277-6715en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0258en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/106887
dc.description.abstractThe evaluation of center‐specific outcomes is often through survival analysis methods. Such evaluations must account for differences in the distribution of patient characteristics across centers. In the context of censored event times, it is also important that the measure chosen to evaluate centers not be influenced by imbalances in the center‐specific censoring distributions. The practice of using center indicators in a hazard regression model is often invalid, inconvenient, or undesirable to carry out. We propose a semiparametric version of the standardized rate ratio (SRR) useful for the evaluation of centers with respect to a right‐censored event time. The SRR for center j can be interpreted as the ratio of the expected number of deaths in the total population (if the total population were in fact subject to the center j mortality hazard) to the observed number of events. The proposed measure is not affected by differences in center‐specific covariate or censoring distributions. Asymptotic properties of the proposed estimators are derived, with finite‐sample properties examined through simulation studies. The proposed methods are applied to national kidney transplant data. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.en_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.subject.otherCenter Effecten_US
dc.subject.otherCox Regressionen_US
dc.subject.otherSurvival Analysisen_US
dc.subject.otherStandardized Rate Ratioen_US
dc.subject.otherStratificationen_US
dc.titleMethods for comparing center‐specific survival outcomes using direct standardizationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelStatistics and Numeric Dataen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106887/1/sim6089.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/sim.6089en_US
dc.identifier.sourceStatistics in Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWolfe RA. The standardized morality ratio revisited: improvements, innovations, and limitations. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1994; 24: 290 – 297.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox DR. Partial likelihood. Biometrika 1975; 62: 269 – 276.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBreslow NE. Contribution to the discussion on the paper by D. R. Cox, regression and life table. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1972; 34: 216 – 217.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHe K. Semi‐parametric and parametric methods for the analysis of multi‐center survival data. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Department of Biostatistics, Ann Arbor, 2012.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKalbfleish JD, Wolfe RA. On monitoring outcomes of medical provider. Statistics in the Bioscience 2013; 5 ( 2 ): 286 – 302.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHazel I. Standardization methods. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, Vol.  7, 2nd ed. Wiley, 2005; 5151 – 5163en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLogan BR, Nelson GO, Klein JP. Analyzing center specific outcomes in hematopoietic cell transplantation. Lifetime Data Analysis 2008; 14: 389 – 404. DOI: 10.1007/s10985‐008‐9100‐6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpiegelhalter D, Johnson CS, Bardsley M, Blunt I, Wood C, Grigg O. Statistical methods for healthcare regulation: rating, screening and surveillance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 2012; 175: 1 – 47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467‐985X.2011.01010.x.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeiding N. The method of expected number of deaths, 1786‐1886‐1986. International Statistical Review 1987; 55: 1 – 20.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWolfe RA, Gaylin DS, Port FK, Held PJ, Wood CL. Using USRDS generated mortality tables to compare local ESRD mortality rates to national rates. Kidney International 1992; 42: 991 – 996.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDickinson DM, Shearon TH, O'Keefe J, Wong HH, Berg CL, Rosendale JD, Delmonico FL, Webb RL, Wolfe RA. SRTR center‐specific reporting tools: posttransplant outcomes. American Journal of Transplantation 2006; 6: 1198 – 1211. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600‐6143.2006.01275.x.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan der Vaart AW. Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge, 1998.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAndersen PK, Borgan Ø, Gill RD, Keiding N. Statistical Models Based on Counting Processes. Springer Series in Statistics: New York, 1993.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKosorok MR. Introduction to Empirical Processes and Semiparametric Inference. Springer Series in Statistics, 2008.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan der Vaart AW, Wellner JA. Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes. Springer: New York, 1996.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOhlssen DI, Sharples LD, Spiegelhalter DJ. Flexible random‐effects models using Bayesian semi‐parametric models: application to institutional comparisons. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26 ( 9 ): 2088 – 2112. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2666.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox DR. Regression models and life tables (with Discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1972; 34: 187 – 200.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerry G. The analysis of mortality by the subject‐years method. Biometrics 1983; 39: 173 – 184.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBreslow NE, Day NE. The standardized mortality ratio. In Biostatistics: Statistics in Biomedical, Public Health and Environmental Sciences, Sen PK (ed.), The Bernard G. Greenberg Volume, 1985; 55 – 74.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.