ArticleBiometrics2018
Evaluating center performance in the competing risks setting: Application to outcomes of wait-listed end-stage renal disease patients.
Article in Biometrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Statistical methods for clustered competing risk data when the event types are only available in a training dataset.Statistical methods in medical research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is often of interest to compare centers or healthcare providers on quality of care delivered. We consider the setting where evaluation of center performance on multiple competing events is of interest. We propose estimating center effects through cause-specific proportional hazards frailty models that allow correlation among a center's cause-specific effects. Estimation of our model proceeds via penalized partial likelihood and is implemented in R. To evaluate center performance, we also propose a directly standardized excess cumulative incidence (ECI) measure. Therefore, based on our proposed methods, practitioners can evaluate centers either through the cause-specific hazards or the cumulative incidence functions. We demonstrate, through simulations, the advantages of the proposed methods to detect outlying centers, by comparing the proposed methods and existing methods which assume uncorrelated random center effects. In addition, we develop a Correlation Score Test to test the null hypothesis that the competing event processes within a center are correlated. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we apply our method to evaluate the performance of Organ Procurement Organizations on two competing risks: (i) receipt of a kidney transplant and (ii) death on the wait-list.
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.