English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We consider statistical methods for benchmarking clinical centers based on a dichotomous outcome indicator. Borrowing ideas from the causal inference literature, we aim to reveal how the entire study population would have fared under the current care level of each center. To this end, we evaluate direct standardization based on fixed versus random center effects outcome models that incorporate patient-specific baseline covariates to adjust for differential case-mix. We explore fixed effects (FE) regression with Firth correction and normal mixed effects (ME) regression to maintain convergence in the presence of very small centers. Moreover, we study doubly robust FE regression to avoid outcome model extrapolation. Simulation studies show that shrinkage following standard ME modeling can result in substantial power loss relative to the considered alternatives, especially for small centers. Results are consistent with findings in the analysis of 30-day mortality risk following acute stroke across 90 centers in the Swedish Stroke Register.

On shrinkage and model extrapolation in the evaluation of clinical center performance