The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

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?
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.
1569-1993
585-591
Nightingale, Julia Anne
9aeb7dbc-9a47-4bfe-a792-dc1af7699d80
Osmond, Clive
2677bf85-494f-4a78-adf8-580e1b8acb81
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), 585-591. (doi:10.1016/j.jcf.2017.04.007).

Record type: Article

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
Download (227kB)

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
ORCID for Clive Osmond: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-9054-4655

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Jun 2017 09:15
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 05:19

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Julia Anne Nightingale
Author: Clive Osmond ORCID iD

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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×