Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist approaches in clinical outcomes between hospitals

Many public health agencies and researchers are interested in comparing hospital outcomes, for example, morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization across areas and hospitals. However, since there is variation of rates in clinical trials among hospitals because of several biases, we are interested in controlling for the bias and assessing real differences in clinical practices. In this study, we compared the variations between hospitals in rates of severe Intraventricular Haemorrhage (IVH) infant using Frequentist statistical approach vs. Bayesian hierarchical model through simulation study. The template data set for simulation study was included the number of severe IVH infants of 24 intensive care units in Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network from 1995 to 1997 in severe IVH rate in preterm babies. We evaluated the rates of severe IVH for 24 hospitals with two hierarchical models in Bayesian approach comparing their performances with the shrunken rates in Frequentist method. Gamma-Poisson (BGP) and Beta-Binomial (BBB) were introduced into Bayesian model and the shrunken estimator of Gamma-Poisson (FGP) hierarchical model using maximum likelihood method were calculated as Frequentist approach. To simulate data, the total number of infants in each hospital was kept and we analyzed the simulated data for both Bayesian and Frequentist models with two true parameters for severe IVH rate. One was the observed rate and the other was the expected severe IVH rate by adjusting for five predictors variables for the template data. The bias in the rate of severe IVH infant estimated by both models showed that Bayesian models gave less variable estimates than Frequentist model. We also discussed and compared the results from three models to examine the variation in rate of severe IVH by 20th centile rates and avoidable number of severe IVH cases. ^

External validation study of a clinical prediction rule for ambulation outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury

The main objective of this study was to determine the external validity of a clinical prediction rule developed by the European Multicenter Study on Human Spinal Cord Injury (EM-SCI) to predict the ambulation outcomes 12 months after traumatic spinal cord injury. Data from the North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) data registry with approximately 500 SCI cases were used for this validity study. The predictive accuracy of the EM-SCI prognostic model was evaluated using calibration and discrimination based on 231 NACTN cases. The area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (ROC) curve was 0.927 (95% CI 0.894 – 0.959) for the EM-SCI model when applied to NACTN population. This is lower than the AUC of 0.956 (95% CI 0.936 – 0.976) reported for the EM-SCI population, but suggests that the EM-SCI clinical prediction rule distinguished well between those patients in the NACTN population who were able to achieve independent ambulation and those who did not achieve independent ambulation. The calibration curve suggests that higher the prediction score is, the better the probability of walking with the best prediction for AIS D patients. In conclusion, the EM-SCI clinical prediction rule was determined to be generalizable to the adult NACTN SCI population.^