Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity.
| Autor: | Moran JL; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, Australia. john.moran@adelaide.edu.au., Santamaria JD; Department of Critical Care Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne), Fitzroy, Australia., Duke GJ; Intensive Services, Eastern Health, Box Hill, Australia. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | BMC medical research methodology [BMC Med Res Methodol] 2021 Jun 21; Vol. 21 (1), pp. 124. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Jun 21. |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s12874-021-01251-8 |
| Abstrakt: | Background: Mortality modelling in the critical care paradigm traditionally uses logistic regression, despite the availability of estimators commonly used in alternate disciplines. Little attention has been paid to covariate endogeneity and the status of non-randomized treatment assignment. Using a large registry database, various binary outcome modelling strategies and methods to account for covariate endogeneity were explored. Methods: Patient mortality data was sourced from the Australian & New Zealand Intensive Society Adult Patient Database for 2016. Hospital mortality was modelled using logistic, probit and linear probability (LPM) models with intensive care (ICU) providers as fixed (FE) and random (RE) effects. Model comparison entailed indices of discrimination and calibration, information criteria (AIC and BIC) and binned residual analysis. Suspect covariate and ventilation treatment assignment endogeneity was identified by correlation between predictor variable and hospital mortality error terms, using the Stata™ "eprobit" estimator. Marginal effects were used to demonstrate effect estimate differences between probit and "eprobit" models. Results: The cohort comprised 92,693 patients from 124 intensive care units (ICU) in calendar year 2016. Patients mean age was 61.8 (SD 17.5) years, 41.6% were female and APACHE III severity of illness score 54.5(25.6); 43.7% were ventilated. Of the models considered in predicting hospital mortality, logistic regression (with or without ICU FE) and RE logistic regression dominated, more so the latter using information criteria indices. The LPM suffered from many predictions outside the unit [0,1] interval and both poor discrimination and calibration. Error terms of hospital length of stay, an independent risk of death score and ventilation status were correlated with the mortality error term. Marked differences in the ventilation mortality marginal effect was demonstrated between the probit and the "eprobit" models which were scenario dependent. Endogeneity was not demonstrated for the APACHE III score. Conclusions: Logistic regression accounting for provider effects was the preferred estimator for hospital mortality modelling. Endogeneity of covariates and treatment variables may be identified using appropriate modelling, but failure to do so yields problematic effect estimates. |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|