Improving observational study estimates of treatment effects using joint modeling of selection effects and outcomes: The case of AAA repair

Medical Care

Volumn 49, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1126-1132

  O'Malley, A James ^a   Cotterill, Philip ^b   Schermerhorn, Marc L ^c   Landon, Bruce E ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES   (United States)

^c BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

abdominal aortic aneurysm; bivariate probit; endovascular and open surgery; selection; volume outcome relationship

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL AORTA ANEURYSM; AGED; ARTICLE; BIVARIATE ANALYSIS; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DATA ANALYSIS; ENDOVASCULAR ANEURYSM REPAIR; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL MODEL; SURVIVAL RATE; THERAPY EFFECT;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AORTIC ANEURYSM, ABDOMINAL; FEMALE; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICARE; UNITED STATES; VASCULAR SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 81355160248     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182363d64     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Gillum RF. Epidemiology of aortic aneurysm in the United States. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:1289-1298.
2. Bengtsson H, Bergqvist D. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a population-based study. J Vasc Surg. 1993;18:74-80. (Pubitemid 23228320)
3. Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Kwong GP, et al. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364:843-848.
4. Prinssen M, Verhoeven EL, Buth J, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2005;351:1607-1618.
5. Schermerhorn ML, O'Malley AJ, Jhaveri A, et al. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:464-474. (Pubitemid 351185802)
6. Giles KA, Landon BE, Cotterill P, et al. Thirty-day mortality and late survival with reinterventions and readmissions after open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in medicare beneficiaries. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:6-13.
7. Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:511-520. (Pubitemid 35024623)
8. Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:1364-1369. (Pubitemid 10170739)
9. TheLeapFrogGroup. Factsheet: Evidence-Based Hospital Referral. 2009:http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/FactSheet-EBHR.pdf.
10. Landon BE, O'Malley AJ, Giles KA, et al. Volume outcomes relationships and AAA repair. Circulation. 2010;122:1290-1297.
11. Amemiya T. Bivariate probit analysis: minimum chi-square methods. J Am Stat Assoc. 1974;69:940-944.
12. Gitto L. Dialysis modality selection according to the medical care provided at dialysis units: an econometric analysis. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2004;5:227-241.
13. Zeng F, O'Leary JF, Sloss EM, et al. The effect of medicare health maintenance organizations on hospitalization rates for ambulatory care-sensitivity conditions. Med Care. 2006;44:900-907. (Pubitemid 44454566)
14. Bhattacharya J, Goldman D, McCaffrey D. Estimating probit models with self-selected treatments. Stat Med. 2006;25:389-413. (Pubitemid 43174538)
15. Freedman DA, Sekhom JS. Endogeneity in probit response models. Political Anal. 2010;18:138-150.
16. White HA. Heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 1980;48:817-838.
17. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat. 1978;6: 461-464.
18. Box GEP, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Series B. 1964;26:211-252.