1 / 51

Do Trauma Centers Save Lives?

Do Trauma Centers Save Lives?. A Statistical Solution Daniel O. Scharfstein. Collaborators. Brian Egleston Ciprian Crainiceanu Zhiqiang Tan Tom Louis. Issues. Outcome Dependent Sampling Missing Data Confounding Direct Adjustment Propensity Score Weighting Propensity Model Selection

keisha
Download Presentation

Do Trauma Centers Save Lives?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Do Trauma Centers Save Lives? A Statistical Solution Daniel O. Scharfstein

  2. Collaborators • Brian Egleston • Ciprian Crainiceanu • Zhiqiang Tan • Tom Louis

  3. Issues • Outcome Dependent Sampling • Missing Data • Confounding • Direct Adjustment • Propensity Score Weighting • Propensity Model Selection • Weight Trimming • Clustering

  4. Big Picture Counterfactual Population: Y(1),X Counterfactual Population: Y(0),X Counterfactual Sample Counterfactual Sample Population: (Y,X,T) Sample Sub-Sample

  5. Population: (Y,X,T) Sample Sub-Sample

  6. Sample Weights • Reciprocal of the conditional probability of being included in the sub-sample given • ISS • AIS • Age • Dead/Alive at Sample Ascertainment • Dead/Alive at 3 Months post injury • Weights depend on outcome - they can’t be ignored.

  7. Missing Data

  8. Multiple Imputation • For proper MI, we fill in the missing data by randomly drawing from the posterior predictive distribution of the missing data given the observed data. • To reflect the uncertainty in these imputed values, we create multiple imputed datasets. • An estimate (and variance) of the effect of trauma center is computed for each completed data. • The results are combined to obtain an overall estimate. • The overall variance is the sum of the within imputation variance and the between imputation variance.

  9. Multiple Imputation • To draw from the posterior predictive distribution, a model for the joint distribution of the variables and a prior distribution on the model parameters must be specified. • Joe Schafer’s software • UM’s ISR software - IVEWARE • Specifies a sequence of full conditionals, which is not, generally, compatible with a joint distribution. • WINBUGS - Crainiceanu and Egleston • Specifies a sequence of conditional models, which is compatible with a joint distribution

  10. Selection Bias

  11. Selection Bias

  12. Selection Bias

  13. Notation • T denotes treatment received (0/1) • X denotes measured covariates • Y(1) denotes the outcome a subject would have under trauma care. • Y(0) denotes the outcome a subject would have under non-trauma care. • Only one of these is observed, namely Y=Y(T), the outcome of the subject under the care actually received. • Observed Data: (Y,T,X)

  14. Causal Estimand

  15. Selection Bias • We worked with scientific experts to define all possible “pre-treatment” variables which are associated with treatment and mortality. • We had extensive discussions about unmeasured confounders. • Within levels of the measured variables, we assumed that treatment was randomized. • T is independent of {Y(0),Y(1)} given X

  16. Example (Hernan et al., 2000)

  17. Direct Adjustment

  18. Direct Adjustment

  19. Direct Adjustment

  20. Direct Adjustment

  21. Direct Adjustment

  22. Direct Adjustment

  23. Counterfactual Population: Y(1),X Counterfactual Population: Y(0),X Counterfactual Sample Counterfactual Sample Population: (Y,X,T) Sample Sub-Sample

  24. Propensity Score Weighting

  25. Y(1) Counterfactual Population

  26. Y(0) Counterfactual Population

  27. Why does this work?

  28. Propensity Model Selection • Select a propensity score model such that the distribution of X is comparable in the two counterfactual populations (Tan, 2004).

  29. Weight Trimming • The propensity score weighted estimator can be sensitive to individuals with large PS weights. • When the weights are highly skewed, the variance of the estimator can be large. • We trim the weights to minimize MSE.

  30. Clustering • Assumed a working independence correlation structure. • Fixed up standard errors using the sandwich variance technique.

  31. Results Counterfactual Populations Sample

  32. Results Counterfactual Populations Sample

  33. Results Counterfactual Populations Sample

  34. Results

  35. 15 10 5 0 TCs In 30 days 90 days 365 days NTCs Hospital Case Fatality RatiosAdjusted for Differences in Casemix Adjusted Relative Risk: .60.75.95

  36. Results MAXAIS <=3

  37. Results MAXAIS = 4

  38. Results MAXAIS = 5,6

  39. Relative Risks by Age and Severity

  40. Potential Lives Saved Nationwide H-CUP Hospital Discharge Data 360,293adults who meet NSCOT inclusion criteria 45% Treated in NTCs 162,132 22,374 Deaths If Treated in NTCs 16,862 Deaths If Treated in TCs 5,512 Each Year

  41. Conservative Estimate • Study non-trauma centers were limited to those treating at least 25 major trauma patients each year; most non-trauma centers are smaller • 17 of the study non-trauma centers had a designated trauma team and 8 had a trauma director

  42. Conclusions . . . to date • The results demonstrate the benefits of trauma center care and argue strongly for continued efforts at regionalization • At the same time, they highlight the difficulty in improving outcomes for the geriatric trauma patient

More Related