Do Common Risk Adjustment Methods Do Their Job Well if Center Effects are Correlated With the Center-Specific Mean Values of Patient Characteristics?

BACKGROUND: Direct and indirect standardization are well-established approaches to performing risk adjustment when comparing outcomes between healthcare providers. However, it is an open question whether they work well when there is an association between the center effects and the distributions of the patient characteristics in these centers. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: We try to shed further light on the impact of such an association. We construct an artificial case study with a single covariate, in which centers can be classified as performing above, on, or below average, and the center effects correlate with center-specific mean values of a patient characteristic, as a consequence of differential quality improvement. Based on this case study, direct standardization and indirect standardization-based on marginal as well as conditional models-are compared with respect to systematic differences between their results. RESULTS: Systematic differences between the methods were observed. All methods produced results that partially reflect differences in mean age across the centers. This may mask the classification as above, on, or below average. The differences could be explained by an inspection of the parameter estimates in the models fitted. CONCLUSIONS: In case of correlations of center effects with center-specific mean values of a covariate, different risk adjustment methods can produce systematically differing results. This suggests the routine use of sensitivity analyses. Center effects in a conditional model need not reflect the position of a center above or below average, questioning its use in defining the truth. Further empirical investigations are necessary to judge the practical relevance of these findings.

Variability in human tooth cementum thickness reflecting functional processes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the thickness of acellular extrinsic fibre cementum (AEFC) at four root positions of anterior and posterior teeth with special focus on functional aspects. Furthermore, the correlations between cementum thickness and chronological age and sex are investigated. BACKGROUND: While numerous studies confirm continuous cementum apposition with age, masticatory forces as well as physiological and orthodontically induced tooth movements also have the potential to affect tooth cementum thickness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Undecalcified teeth were embedded in resin and transverse-sectioned in the cervical third of the root. Two sections per root were selected, and digital images at four positions were obtained (mesial, distal, oral, and vestibular) using light microscopy. The AEFC thickness of 99 teeth (anterior = 66, posterior = 33, male = 54, female = 45) were measured in both sections. The differences in mean values between root positions and the association of root position variation with tooth type, age, sex, and subject as well as the overall effects of age and sex were analysed using a mixed model. RESULTS: First incisors and canines showed the greatest mean AFEC thickness, in contrast to premolars which had the lowest values. Differences were found across the four root positions, with a pattern varying considerably between anterior and posterior teeth and between maxilla and mandible in the anterior teeth. An interaction between root position and subject pointed to the existence of an individual component in the variation of AEFC thickness across the four root positions. There was an age trend with an almost linear increase in cementum thickness of 1 µm per year. Overall, females tended to exhibit a significantly lesser AEFC thickness compared to males. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct differences in the pattern of thickness values across the four root positions in anterior and posterior teeth support the assumption that the AEFC is strongly affected by functional processes. In addition to sex-specific differences and age-related trends, the root position variation of AEFC thickness varies from individual to individual.

Anchor-based minimal important difference values are often sensitive to the distribution of the change score.

PURPOSE: Anchor-based studies are today the most popular approach to determine a minimal important difference value for an outcome variable. However, a variety of construction methods for such values do exist. This constitutes a challenge to the field. In order to distinguish between more or less adequate construction methods, meaningful minimal requirements can be helpful. For example, minimal important difference values should not reflect the intervention(s) the patients are exposed to in the study used for construction, as they should later allow to compare interventions. This requires that they are not sensitive to the distribution of the change score observed. This study aims at investigating to which degree established construction methods fulfil this minimal requirement. METHODS: Six constructions methods were considered, covering very popular and recently suggested methods. The sensitivity of MID values to the distribution of the change score was investigated in a simulation study for these six construction methods. RESULTS: Five out of six construction methods turned out to yield MID values which are sensitive to the distribution of the change score to a degree that questions their usefulness. Insensitivity can be obtained by using construction methods based solely on an estimate of the conditional distribution of the anchor variable given the change score. CONCLUSION: In future the computation of MID values should be based on construction methods avoiding sensitivity to the distribution of the change score.

Prospective Back Pain Trajectories or Retrospective Recall-Which Tells Us Most About the Patient?

In patients with low back pain (LBP), a visually identified retrospective pain trajectory often mismatches with a trajectory derived from prospective repeated measures. To gain insight into the clinical relevance of the 2 trajectory types, we investigated which showed a higher association with clinical outcomes. Participants were 724 adults seeking care for LBP in Danish chiropractic primary care. They answered weekly short-message-services on pain intensity and frequency over 52 weeks, which we translated into 8 trajectory classes. After 52 weeks, participants selected a retrospective visual pain trajectory from the same 8 trajectory classes. Clinical outcomes included disability, back/leg pain intensity, back beliefs, and work ability. The patient-selected pain trajectory classes were more strongly associated with clinical outcomes than the short-message-service trajectory classes at baseline, at follow-up, and with outcome changes between baseline and follow-up. This held across all 5 clinical outcomes, with the strongest associations observed at week 52 and the weakest at baseline. Patients' retrospective assessment of their LBP is more strongly associated with their clinical status than their prospective assessments translated into trajectory classes. This suggests that retrospective assessments of pain trajectories may provide valuable information not captured by prospective assessments. Researchers collecting prospective pain data should know that the captured pain trajectories are not strongly reflected in patients' perceptions of clinical status. Patients' retrospective assessments seem to offer an interpretation of their pain course that is likely more clinically relevant in understanding the perceived impact of their condition than trajectories based on repeated measures. PERSPECTIVE: Prospective pain data inadequately reflect patients' clinical status. Retrospective assessments provide a more clinically valuable understanding of the impact of their condition.