↓ Skip to main content

Bias due to censoring of deaths when calculating extra length of stay for patients acquiring a hospital infection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bias due to censoring of deaths when calculating extra length of stay for patients acquiring a hospital infection
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0500-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shahina Rahman, Maja von Cube, Martin Schumacher, Martin Wolkewitz

Abstract

In many studies the information of patients who are dying in the hospital is censored when examining the change in length of hospital stay (cLOS) due to hospital-acquired infections (HIs). While appropriate estimators of cLOS are available in literature, the existence of the bias due to censoring of deaths was neither mentioned nor discussed by the according authors. Using multi-state models, we systematically evaluate the bias when estimating cLOS in such a way. We first evaluate the bias in a mathematically closed form assuming a setting with constant hazards. To estimate the cLOS due to HIs non-parametrically, we relax the assumption of constant hazards and consider a time-inhomogeneous Markov model. In our analytical evaluation we are able to discuss challenging effects of the bias on cLOS. These are in regard to direct and indirect differential mortality. Moreover, we can make statements about the magnitude and direction of the bias. For real-world relevance, we illustrate the bias on a publicly available prospective cohort study on hospital-acquired pneumonia in intensive-care. Based on our findings, we can conclude that censoring the death cases in the hospital and considering only patients discharged alive should be avoided when estimating cLOS. Moreover, we found that the closed mathematical form can be used to describe the bias for settings with constant hazards.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 31%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,827,010
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#831
of 2,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,280
of 331,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#30
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.