PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7782221

An integer programming model to limit hospital selection in studies with repeated sampling.

M Shwartz·R K Klimberg·M Karp·L I Iezzoni·A S Ash·J Heineke·S M Payne·J D Restuccia
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We describe an integer programming model that, for studies requiring repeated sampling from hospitals, can aid in selecting a limited set of hospitals from which medical records are reviewed. STUDY SETTING: The model is illustrated in the context of two studies: (1) an analysis of the relationship between variations in hospital admission rates across geographic areas and rates of inappropriate admissions; and (2) a validation of computerized algorithms that screen for complications of hospital care. STUDY DESIGN: Common characteristics of the two studies: (1) hospitals are classified into categories, e.g., high, medium, and low; (2) the classification process is repeated several times, e.g., for different medical conditions; (3) medical records are selected separately for each iteration of the classification; and (4) for budgetary and logistical reasons, reviews must be concentrated in a relatively small subset of hospitals. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS. In each study, hospitals are ranked based on analysis of hospital discharge abstract data. CONCLUSIONS: The model is useful for identifying a subset of hospitals at which more intensive reviews will be conducted.

Explore related subjects

BiasData Interpretation, StatisticalDiagnosis-Related GroupsHealth Services MisuseHealth Services ResearchHospitalsMedical RecordsModels, StatisticalOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of Health CareSampling StudiesSmall-Area AnalysisUnited StatesJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Shwartz, R K Klimberg, M Karp, L I Iezzoni, A S Ash, J Heineke, S M Payne, J D Restuccia. 1995. An integer programming model to limit hospital selection in studies with repeated sampling.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7782221/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2000

Unbiased and efficient estimation of the total number of terminal bronchiolar duct endings in lung: a modified physical disector.

A novel modification of the physical disector is described which was used to estimate the total number of terminal bronchiolar duct endings (TBDEs) in human infant lung. TBDEs are closed three-dimensional space curves of complex shape that are inherently difficult to count from histological sections. However, careful consideration of the microanatomy of the terminal duct endings provides us with the opportunity to define a very simple and unbiased counting rule. To apply the rule in practice we also need to determine a suitable disector height. Owing to the complex shape of the TBDE we had no prior knowledge of what disector height would be suitable for counting the TBDE structures. Exhaustive serial sectioning of complete TBDE structures was carried out and showed that any disector height under 90 microm would give unbiased counts. A further empirical study was then undertaken to determine the most efficient disector height. This was found to be 50 micro. The total number of TBDEs in the upper lobe of the right lung of six human infants aged between 13 and 25 weeks was also estimated. The estimates of numerical density obtained with our modification of the physical disector were multiplied by estimates of lung lobe volume obtained using Cavalieri's Principle. The total number of TBDEs in the lobes ranged from 15 323 to 57 768, with a mean of 40 306. The average coefficient of error of the number estimates was 19%, which was deemed precise enough given the biological coefficient of variation between TBDE number of 36%.

Bias↗