IntroductionThe availability of electronic health records and the demand for value‐driven healthcare have led to greatly increased interest in the methods for evaluation of center performance (Ash et al., ). For continuous or binary outcomes, center effects are usually estimated as either fixed or random effects models. Evaluation of center performance is then generally carried out by comparing these estimated risk‐adjusted center effects to some fixed quantity, or the average center effect, or by using graphical checks (Spiegelhalter et al., ).The proposed methods are motivated by the end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) setting. There are thousands more patients in need of transplantation than there are donor kidneys. As a result, medically suitable ESRD patients are placed on a waiting list. For example, in 2015, there were 98,956 patients on the kidney waiting list at year‐end, but only 11,594 deceased‐donor kidney transplants (Hart et al., ). In the United States, there are 58 wait‐lists, each administered by an Organ Procurement Organization (OPO). Our objective here is to evaluate OPOs with respect to (i) kidney transplantation and (ii) pre‐transplant death (competing risks) among wait‐listed patients.While there has been extensive research conducted into establishing methods for institutional comparisons with respect to binary and
Biometrics – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2018
Keywords: ; ; ; ; ;
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud