Does current reporting of lung function by the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry allow a fair comparison of adult centres?
Does current reporting of lung function by the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry allow a fair comparison of adult centres?
Background:
Outcome data for UK cystic fibrosis centres are publicly available in an annual report, which ranks centres by median FEV1% predicted. We wished to assess whether there are differences in lung function outcomes between adult centres that might imply differing standards of care.
Methods:
UK Registry data from 4761 subjects at 34 anonymised adult centres were used to calculate mean FEV1% and rate of change of lung function for 2007–13. These measures were used to rank centres and compare outcomes.
Results:
There are minor differences between centres for mean FEV1% for some years of the study and for rate of change of lung function over the study period. However, rankings are critically dependent on the outcome measure chosen and centre variation becomes negligible once patient population characteristics are taken into account.
Conclusions:
We have demonstrated that the ranking of centres is biased and any apparent difference in respiratory outcomes is unlikely to be related to differing standards of care between centres.
585-591
Nightingale, Julia Anne
9aeb7dbc-9a47-4bfe-a792-dc1af7699d80
Osmond, Clive
2677bf85-494f-4a78-adf8-580e1b8acb81
September 2017
Nightingale, Julia Anne
9aeb7dbc-9a47-4bfe-a792-dc1af7699d80
Osmond, Clive
2677bf85-494f-4a78-adf8-580e1b8acb81
Nightingale, Julia Anne and Osmond, Clive
(2017)
Does current reporting of lung function by the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry allow a fair comparison of adult centres?
Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, 16 (5), .
(doi:10.1016/j.jcf.2017.04.007).
Abstract
Background:
Outcome data for UK cystic fibrosis centres are publicly available in an annual report, which ranks centres by median FEV1% predicted. We wished to assess whether there are differences in lung function outcomes between adult centres that might imply differing standards of care.
Methods:
UK Registry data from 4761 subjects at 34 anonymised adult centres were used to calculate mean FEV1% and rate of change of lung function for 2007–13. These measures were used to rank centres and compare outcomes.
Results:
There are minor differences between centres for mean FEV1% for some years of the study and for rate of change of lung function over the study period. However, rankings are critically dependent on the outcome measure chosen and centre variation becomes negligible once patient population characteristics are taken into account.
Conclusions:
We have demonstrated that the ranking of centres is biased and any apparent difference in respiratory outcomes is unlikely to be related to differing standards of care between centres.
Text
Does current reporting 04April2017-final accepted version
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 6 April 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 24 April 2017
Published date: September 2017
Organisations:
Medical Research Council
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 410617
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/410617
ISSN: 1569-1993
PURE UUID: 36ba12df-551e-4bd5-8684-6deefaf492d2
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 09 Jun 2017 09:15
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 05:19
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Julia Anne Nightingale
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics