Advertisement

Choice of statistical models for assessing the clinical outcomes of the efforts to provide high quality care for the ESRD patient

  • Edward F. Vonesh
Part of the Developments in Nephrology book series (DINE, volume 39)

Abstract

The role of quality assurance (QA) and continuous quality improvement (CQI) in the managed care of ESRD patients is closely linked with the ideas of evidence- based clinical practice and outcomes research. With concerns over rising costs in the treatment of ESRD patients, evidence-based clinical practice provides a mechanism whereby clinicians can choose a cost effective treatment or therapy for a group or subgroup of patients while optimizing select patient outcomes (e.g. improved patient survival, better quality of life, reduced patient hospitalization, etc.). This chapter provides some basic statistical principles, methods and models which clinicians can use in pursuit of evidence based clinical practice, quality assurance, CQI and/or outcomes research. Specific attention will be paid to the use of proper statistical methods for collecting, analyzing and summarizing patient-specific outcomes as they relate to a set of explanatory variables (i.e. independent variables or covariates).

Keywords

Peritoneal Dialysis Hazard Rate ESRD Patient Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Continuous Quality Improvement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Twardowski ZJ, Nolph KD, Khanna R et al. Peritoneal equilibration test. Perit Dial Bull 1987; 7(3): 138–47.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Conover WJ. Practical nonparametric statistics, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lehmann EL. Nonparametrics: statistical methods based on ranks. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedman GD. Primer of epidemiology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Monson RR. Occupational epidemiology. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breslow NE and Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research, volume 1: the analysis of case-control studies. Lyon: IARC Scientific Publications No. 32, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diggle PJ, Liang K.-Y and Zeger SL. Analysis of longitudinal data. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davidian M and Giltinan DM. Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data, 1st edition. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vonesh EF and Chinchilli VM. Linear and nonlinear models for the analysis of repeated measurements 1st edition. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    SAS Institute Inc. Master Index to SAS System Documentation, Version 6. 3rd edition. Cary: SAS Institute Inc., 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vonesh EF. Estimating rates of recurrent peritonitis for patients on CAPD. Perit Dial Bull 1985; 5:59–65.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vonesh EF. Modeling peritonitis rates and associated risk factors for individuals on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Stat Med 1990; 9:263 71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luzar MA, Coles GA, Faller B et al. Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage and infection in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. N Engl J Med 1990; 322:505–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tranaeus A, Heimburger O and Lindholm B. Peritonitis during continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD): risk factors, clinical severity, and pathogenetic aspects. Perit Dial Int 1988; 8:253–63.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vonesh EF. Which statistical method to use when analyzing the incidence of peritoneal dialysis related infections? Perit Dial Int 1991; 11:301–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holford TR. The analysis of rates and of survivorship using log-linear models. Biometrics 1980; 36:299–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berry G. The analysis of mortality by the subject-years method. Biometrics 1983; 39:173–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frome EL. The analysis of rates using Poisson regression models. Biometrics 1983; 39:665–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fenton SSA, Schaubel DE, Desmeules M et al. Hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: a comparison of adjusted mortality rates. Am J Kidney Disease 1997; 30:334–42.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Canada-USA (CANUSA) Peritoneal Dialysis Study Group. Adequacy of dialysis and nutrition in continuous peritoneal dialysis: Association with clinical outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 1996; 7:198–207.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981; 237–55.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dean CB and Balshaw R. Efficiency lost by analyzing counts rather than event times in Poisson and overdispersed Poisson regression models. J Am Stat Assoc 1997; 92:1387–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Allison PD. Survival analysis using the SAS system: a practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.. 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaplan EL and Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53:457 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cox DR. Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J Royal Stat Society 1972; B34:187–220.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalbfleisch JD and Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. 1980.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malorca R, Vonesh E, Cancarini CG et al. A six year comparison of patient and technique survivals in CAPD and HD. Kidney Int 1988; 34:518–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Serkes KD, Blagg CR, Nolph KD, Vonesh EF and Shapiro F. Comparison of patient and technique survival in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) and hemodialysis: a multicenter study. Perit Dial Int 1989; 10:15–19.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maiorca R, Vonesh EF, Cavilli P et al. A multicenter selection-adjusted comparison of patient and technique survivals on CAPD and hemodialysis. Perit Dial Int 1991; 11:118–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Held PJ, Port FK, Turenne MN, Gaylin DS, Hamburger RJ and Wolfe RA. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis: comparison of patient mortality with adjustment for comorbid conditions. Kidney Int 1994; 45:1163–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wolfe RA and Strawderman RL. Logical and statistical fallacies in the use of Cox regression models. Am J Kidney Dis 1996; 27:124–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nelson CB, Port FK, Wolfe RA and Guire KE. Comparison of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patient survival with evaluation of trends during the 1980s. J Am Soc Nephrol 1992; 3:1147–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nelson CB, Port FK, Wolfe RA and Guire KE. Dialysis patient survival: evaluation of CAPD versus HD using 3 techniques [Abstract]. Perit Dial Int 1992: 12:144.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fisher LD, Dixon DO, Herson J et al. Intention to treat in clinical trials. In Peace KE, editor. Statistical issues in drug research and development. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1990.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vonesh EF. Relative risks can be risky. Perit Dial Int 1993; 13:5–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward F. Vonesh

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations