Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25928734›Full record

ArticleBMC nephrology2015

Comparative changes in treatment practices and clinical outcomes following implementation of a prospective payment system: the STEPPS study.

Keri L Monda, Parveen Nedra Joseph, Peter J Neumann, Brian D Bradbury, Robert J Rubin

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nephrology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Erythropoietin treatment and the risk of hip fractures in hemodialysis patients.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Keri L MondaCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc, One Amgen Center Drive MS 24-2-A, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320-1799, USA. kmonda@amgen.com.
Parveen Nedra JosephCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc, One Amgen Center Drive MS 24-2-A, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320-1799, USA. njoseph@amgen.com.
Peter J NeumannCenter for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. pneumann@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.
Brian D BradburyCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc, One Amgen Center Drive MS 24-2-A, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320-1799, USA. bradbury@amgen.com.
Robert J RubinDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. rjrmd@comcast.net.
Amgen (United States) · USGeorgetown University · USTufts Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the US dialysis Prospective Payment System bundle, launched in January 2011, was reduction and more accurate prediction of costs of services, whilst maintaining or improving patient care. Dialysis facilities could either adopt the bundle completely (100%) in the first year of launch, or phase-in (25%) over four years. Differences in practice patterns and patient outcomes were hypothesized to occur in facilities that phased-in 25% compared to those that did not.

methodsData are from STEPPS, a study of 51 small dialysis organization facilities designed to describe trends in dialytic treatment before and after bundle implementation. Baseline was defined as October-December 2010; follow-up as January-December 2011. Facility- and patient-level data were collected at enrollment and regularly thereafter. Cox proportional hazards and linear multi-level models were used to estimate the effect of opting-in 25% (vs. 100%) on practice patterns and clinical outcomes.

results12 facilities (patient n = 346) opted-in 25% and 37 facilities (patient n = 1296) opted-in 100% to the dialysis bundle. At baseline, patients at 25% facilities were primarily covered by Medicare, were more likely to be black, and were receiving higher monthly epoetin alfa (EPO) doses. Throughout 2011, patients in 100% facilities received lower monthly EPO doses, and had lower mean hemoglobin concentrations; hospitalization and mortality rates were numerically lower in 25% facilities but not statistically different.

conclusionsThe economic pressure for dialysis providers to work within an expanded composite rate bundle whilst maintaining patient care may be a driver of practice indicator outcomes. Additional investigations are warranted to more precisely estimate clinical outcomes in patients attending facilities enrolling into the bundle 100% relative to the previous fee-for-service framework.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'Prospective Payment SystemAdultAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesAnemiaEpoetin AlfaFemaleHematinicsHospitalizationHumansKidney Failure, ChronicLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareEpoetin AlfaHematinics

Identifiers

PMID25928734
PMCPMC4428114
OpenAlexW2056008921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.