Which risk-adjustment index performs better in predicting 30-day mortality? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mo Yang, Hemalkumar Mehta, Vishal Bali, Parul Gupta, Xin Wang, Michael L. Johnson, Rajender R. Aparasu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives Individual comparisons of the performance of risk-adjustment indices have been widely conducted. Few reviews have been conducted to summarize the performance of different risk-adjustment indices. A 30-day mortality rate is widely used to evaluate the quality of care in hospitals by federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This study examined relative performance of risk-adjustment indices that predict 30-day mortality. Methods Databases including Medline, PubMed and PsycINFO were searched for studies that compared risk-adjustment indices. The search protocol included comparative studies in which the performance of risk-adjustment indices were compared across any defined cohort to compare 30-day mortality, including mortality within 30 days and intensive care unit mortality, which lasts less than 30 days. Data were extracted using a structured form and abstract data included author and publication year, population studied (including location, sample size, study time period), comparison indices, outcome studied, results and conclusions from the results. A meta-analytical approach was used to summarize all the studies. Scaled ranking score was used to estimate the relative superiority of any given risk-adjustment indices. A hypergeometric test was carried out to evaluate the performance of risk-adjustment measures. Results Out of 2805 studies identified, 23 studies met the eligibility criteria. Main risk-adjustment indices used for comparison included Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson co-morbidity index, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS). Based on scaled ranking score, SAPS performed best (score 0.510) among all the risk-adjustment indices. However, based on hypergeometric test, the five measures performed equally well. Conclusions Although all the selected risk-adjustment indices perform equally well, SAPS seems better than other indices for short-term mortality based on scaled ranking score.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)292-299
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume21
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Risk Adjustment
Meta-Analysis
Mortality
Federal Hospitals
Organ Dysfunction Scores
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.)
End Stage Liver Disease
APACHE
Quality of Health Care
PubMed
Sample Size
Intensive Care Units
Publications
Databases
Morbidity

Keywords

  • co-morbidity measures
  • meta-analysis
  • mortality
  • risk-adjustment indices
  • severity of illness measures
  • systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Which risk-adjustment index performs better in predicting 30-day mortality? A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Yang, Mo; Mehta, Hemalkumar; Bali, Vishal; Gupta, Parul; Wang, Xin; Johnson, Michael L.; Aparasu, Rajender R.

In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 21, No. 2, 01.04.2015, p. 292-299.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yang, Mo ; Mehta, Hemalkumar ; Bali, Vishal ; Gupta, Parul ; Wang, Xin ; Johnson, Michael L. ; Aparasu, Rajender R. / Which risk-adjustment index performs better in predicting 30-day mortality? A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2015 ; Vol. 21, No. 2. pp. 292-299.
@article{bc6aa06b9df74a8c893f3a1699c2682c,
title = "Which risk-adjustment index performs better in predicting 30-day mortality? A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Rationale, aims and objectives Individual comparisons of the performance of risk-adjustment indices have been widely conducted. Few reviews have been conducted to summarize the performance of different risk-adjustment indices. A 30-day mortality rate is widely used to evaluate the quality of care in hospitals by federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This study examined relative performance of risk-adjustment indices that predict 30-day mortality. Methods Databases including Medline, PubMed and PsycINFO were searched for studies that compared risk-adjustment indices. The search protocol included comparative studies in which the performance of risk-adjustment indices were compared across any defined cohort to compare 30-day mortality, including mortality within 30 days and intensive care unit mortality, which lasts less than 30 days. Data were extracted using a structured form and abstract data included author and publication year, population studied (including location, sample size, study time period), comparison indices, outcome studied, results and conclusions from the results. A meta-analytical approach was used to summarize all the studies. Scaled ranking score was used to estimate the relative superiority of any given risk-adjustment indices. A hypergeometric test was carried out to evaluate the performance of risk-adjustment measures. Results Out of 2805 studies identified, 23 studies met the eligibility criteria. Main risk-adjustment indices used for comparison included Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson co-morbidity index, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS). Based on scaled ranking score, SAPS performed best (score 0.510) among all the risk-adjustment indices. However, based on hypergeometric test, the five measures performed equally well. Conclusions Although all the selected risk-adjustment indices perform equally well, SAPS seems better than other indices for short-term mortality based on scaled ranking score.",
keywords = "co-morbidity measures, meta-analysis, mortality, risk-adjustment indices, severity of illness measures, systematic review",
author = "Mo Yang and Hemalkumar Mehta and Vishal Bali and Parul Gupta and Xin Wang and Johnson, {Michael L.} and Aparasu, {Rajender R.}",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jep.12307",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "292--299",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice",
issn = "1356-1294",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Which risk-adjustment index performs better in predicting 30-day mortality? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Yang, Mo

AU - Mehta, Hemalkumar

AU - Bali, Vishal

AU - Gupta, Parul

AU - Wang, Xin

AU - Johnson, Michael L.

AU - Aparasu, Rajender R.

PY - 2015/4/1

Y1 - 2015/4/1

N2 - Rationale, aims and objectives Individual comparisons of the performance of risk-adjustment indices have been widely conducted. Few reviews have been conducted to summarize the performance of different risk-adjustment indices. A 30-day mortality rate is widely used to evaluate the quality of care in hospitals by federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This study examined relative performance of risk-adjustment indices that predict 30-day mortality. Methods Databases including Medline, PubMed and PsycINFO were searched for studies that compared risk-adjustment indices. The search protocol included comparative studies in which the performance of risk-adjustment indices were compared across any defined cohort to compare 30-day mortality, including mortality within 30 days and intensive care unit mortality, which lasts less than 30 days. Data were extracted using a structured form and abstract data included author and publication year, population studied (including location, sample size, study time period), comparison indices, outcome studied, results and conclusions from the results. A meta-analytical approach was used to summarize all the studies. Scaled ranking score was used to estimate the relative superiority of any given risk-adjustment indices. A hypergeometric test was carried out to evaluate the performance of risk-adjustment measures. Results Out of 2805 studies identified, 23 studies met the eligibility criteria. Main risk-adjustment indices used for comparison included Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson co-morbidity index, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS). Based on scaled ranking score, SAPS performed best (score 0.510) among all the risk-adjustment indices. However, based on hypergeometric test, the five measures performed equally well. Conclusions Although all the selected risk-adjustment indices perform equally well, SAPS seems better than other indices for short-term mortality based on scaled ranking score.

AB - Rationale, aims and objectives Individual comparisons of the performance of risk-adjustment indices have been widely conducted. Few reviews have been conducted to summarize the performance of different risk-adjustment indices. A 30-day mortality rate is widely used to evaluate the quality of care in hospitals by federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This study examined relative performance of risk-adjustment indices that predict 30-day mortality. Methods Databases including Medline, PubMed and PsycINFO were searched for studies that compared risk-adjustment indices. The search protocol included comparative studies in which the performance of risk-adjustment indices were compared across any defined cohort to compare 30-day mortality, including mortality within 30 days and intensive care unit mortality, which lasts less than 30 days. Data were extracted using a structured form and abstract data included author and publication year, population studied (including location, sample size, study time period), comparison indices, outcome studied, results and conclusions from the results. A meta-analytical approach was used to summarize all the studies. Scaled ranking score was used to estimate the relative superiority of any given risk-adjustment indices. A hypergeometric test was carried out to evaluate the performance of risk-adjustment measures. Results Out of 2805 studies identified, 23 studies met the eligibility criteria. Main risk-adjustment indices used for comparison included Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson co-morbidity index, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS). Based on scaled ranking score, SAPS performed best (score 0.510) among all the risk-adjustment indices. However, based on hypergeometric test, the five measures performed equally well. Conclusions Although all the selected risk-adjustment indices perform equally well, SAPS seems better than other indices for short-term mortality based on scaled ranking score.

KW - co-morbidity measures

KW - meta-analysis

KW - mortality

KW - risk-adjustment indices

KW - severity of illness measures

KW - systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925445460&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925445460&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jep.12307

DO - 10.1111/jep.12307

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 292

EP - 299

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

SN - 1356-1294

IS - 2

ER -