Health services research in critical care using administrative data

Journal of Critical Care

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 264-269

  Wunsch, Hannah ^a   Harrison, David A ^b   Rowan, Kathryn ^b  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b and London School of Hygiene Tropical Medicine   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Administrative data; Health services research; Quality

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW;

EID: 27144528694     PISSN: 08839441     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. N. Black Health services research: saviour or chimera? Lancet 349 1997 1834 1836
2. G.D. Rubenfeld, D.C. Angus, and M.R. Pinsky Outcomes research in critical care: results of the American Thoracic Society Critical Care Assembly Workshop on Outcomes Research Am J Resp Crit Care Med 60 1999 358 367
3. B. Jarman, S. Gault, and B. Alves Explaining differences in English hospital death rates using routinely collected data BMJ 318 1999 1515 1520
4. J.P. Bunker, and N. Black Differences in death rates in English hospitals. Data are inadequate basis for drawing conclusion of paper BMJ 319 1999 854 855
5. G. Parry, E.S. Draper, and P. McKinney Paediatric cardiac surgical mortality after Bristol: details of risk adjustment tools were not given BMJ 330 2005 43
6. N. Black, and M. Payne Directory of clinical databases: improving and promoting their use Qual Saf Health Care 12 2003 348 352
7. N. Black, M. Barker, and M. Payne Cross-sectional survey of multicentre clinical databases in the United Kingdom BMJ 328 2004 1478 1481
8. Intensive Care Med 2005 [in press] http://www.saps3.org
9. S.J. Pocock, and D.R. Elbourne Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med 342 2000 1907 1909
10. R.P. Harris, M. Helfand, and S.H. Woolf Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process Am J Prev Med 20 2001 21 35
11. D.G. Altman, and J.M. Bland Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ 318 1999 1209
12. A. Britton, M. McKee, and N. Black Threats to applicability of randomised trials: exclusions and selective participation J Health Serv Res Policy 4 1999 112 121
13. N. Black Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care BMJ 312 1996 1215 1218
14. C. Goldfrad, and K. Rowan Consequences of discharges from intensive care at night Lancet 355 2000 1138 1142
15. H. Wunsch, J. Mapstone, and A. Brady Hospital mortality associated with day and time of admission to intensive care units Intensive Care Med 30 2004 895 901
16. K. Vella, C. Goldfrad, K. Rowan, J.F. Bion, and N.A. Black Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care BMJ 320 2000 976 980
17. S. Carmel, and K. Rowan Variation in intensive care unit outcomes: a search for the evidence on organizational factors Curr Opin Crit Care 7 2001 284 296
18. D. Cook, D. Heyland, and J. Marshall On the need for observational studies to design and interpret randomized trials in ICU patients: a case study in stress ulcer prophylaxis Intensive Care Med 27 2001 347 354
19. A. Padkin, K. Rowan, and N. Black Using high quality clinical databases to complement the results of randomized controlled trials: the case of recombinant human activated protein C BMJ 323 2001 923 926
20. D. Angus, and N. Black Wider lessons of the pulmonary artery catheter trial BMJ 322 2001 446
21. S. Harvey, D.A. Harrison, and M. Singer Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial Lancet 366 2005 472 477
22. K.F. Schulz, I. Chalmers, and R.J. Hayes Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials JAMA 273 1995 408 412
23. L.D. Saunders, G.M. Soomro, and J. Buckingham Assessing the methodological quality of nonrandomized intervention studies West J Nurs Res 25 2003 223 237
24. S.H. Downs, and N. Black The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions J Epidemiol Community Health 52 1998 377 384
25. R. Horton, and R. Smith Time to register randomized trials Lancet 354 1999 1138 1139
26. H. Wunsch, A. Brady, and K. Rowan Impact of exclusion criteria from severity of disease scoring methods on outcomes in intensive care J Crit Care 19 2004 67 74
27. W.A. Knaus, E.A. Draper, and D.P. Wagner APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system Crit Care Med 13 1985 818 829
28. J.R. Le Gall, S. Lemeshow, and F. Saulnier A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study JAMA 270 1993 2957 2963
29. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2 Lancet 2 1988 349 360
30. J.A.C. Sterne, and G.D. Smith Sifting the evidence: what's wrong with significance tests? BMJ 22 2001 226 231
31. J.M. Bland, and D.G. Altman Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method BMJ 310 1995 170
32. G.A. Diamond, and T.A. Denton Alternative perspectives on the biased foundations of medical technology assessment Ann Intern Med 118 1993 455 464
33. P.J. Easterbrook, R. Gopalan, and J.A. Berlin Publication bias in clinical research Lancet 337 1991 867 872