ArticleBMC public health2014
Differential misclassification of confounders in comparative evaluation of hospital care quality: caesarean sections in Italy.
Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- EASY-NET Program: Methods and Preliminary Results of an Audit and Feedback Intervention in the Emergency Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Lazio Region, Italy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Causal feature selection using a knowledge graph combining structured knowledge from the biomedical literature and ontologies: A use case studying depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the breast cancer care network within the Lazio Region (Central Italy).PloS one · 2020Article
- Vaginal birth after caesarean birth in Italy: variations among areas of residence and hospitals.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- An Observational Study of the Efficacy of Cisatracurium Compared with Vecuronium in Patients with or at Risk for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite extensive studies on exposure and disease misclassification, few studies have investigated misclassification of confounders. This study aimed to identify differentially misclassified confounders in a comparative evaluation of hospital care quality and to quantify their impact on hospital-specific risk-adjusted estimates, focusing on the appropriateness of caesarean sections (CS).
methodsWe gathered data from the Hospital Information System in Italy for women admitted in 2005-2010. We estimated adjusted proportions of CS with logistic regression models. Among several confounders, we focused on high fetal head at term (HFH), which is seldom objectively documentable in medical records.
resultsA total of 540 maternity units were compared. The median HFH prevalence was 0.9%, ranging from 0 to 70%. In some units, HFH was coded so frequently that it was unlikely to reflect a natural heterogeneity. This "over-coding" was conditional on the outcome because it occurred more frequently for women that underwent CS. This suggested an opportunistic coding to justify the choice of a CS. HFH misclassification was not randomly distributed over Italy; it had an excess in the Campania region where, in some units, the proportion of HFHs gradually increased from 2005 to 2010 (e.g., from 0 to 26%), but the national average remained constant (2.5%). The inclusion of the misclassified diagnosis in the models favored those hospitals that codified in a less-than-fair manner.
conclusionsOur findings emphasized the importance of rigorously inspecting for differential misclassification of confounders. Their validity may be subject to substantial heterogeneity over hospitals, over time and geographical areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.