Validation of a Scoring System for Near-Miss (life-threatening) Maternal Morbidity.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
How would you explain the smoking paradox. Smokers fair better after an infarction in hospital than non-smokers. This apparently disagrees with the view.
Advertisements

Laura L. McDermott, PhD, FNP, RN Gale A. Spencer, PhD, RN Binghamton University Decker School of Nursing THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS.
Departments of Medicine and Biostatistics
Risk of Low Birth Weight Associated with Family Poverty in Korea Bong Joo Lee Se Hee Lim Department of Social Welfare, Seoul National University. A Paper.
Body Image and Weight Status among African American and Caucasian Overweight Postpartum Women Participating in a Weight Loss Intervention Lori Carter-Edwards,
Statistics for Health Care
Shae Sutton, PhD South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Division of Biostatistics.
Maternal Health Measurements Moussa LY, MPH Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist Maternal Health/Family Planning Project Dakar - Senegal.
Math 227 Elementary Statistics
Emily O’Brien, Emil Fosbol, Andrew Peng, Karen Alexander, Matthew Roe, Eric Peterson The Obesity Paradox: The Importance for Long-term Outcomes in Non-ST-Elevation.
ILLNESSES, INJURIES, AND HOSPITALIZATIONS AMONG INNER-CITY MINORITY INFANTS IN CHICAGO.
Examining the Impact of Non- Resident Births on Systems Limitations in Philadelphia Obstetrical Care Cynthia L. Line, Ph.D. Patricia Morris, MPH Katherine.
SEVERE ACUTE MATERNAL MORBIDITY/NEAR MISS MATERNAL MORBIDITY Sangeetagupta Seniorconsultant&HOD, Deptt of Obst.&Gynae,ESIPGIMSR,Basaidarapur.
Statistics for Health Care Biostatistics. Phases of a Full Clinical Trial Phase I – the trial takes place after the development of a therapy and is designed.
Understanding Why Patients Accept Vaccination: A Socio-Behavioral Approach at the University of Louisville Vaccine and International Health and Travel.
Infant Mortality: Trends and Disparities
Objectives Methods ‘ Whooley’ questions were provided to all clinical staff from July Retrospectively, a random sample of patients who presented.
Monthly Journal article review: Vimmi Kang PGY 2
Debbie Postlethwaite RNP, MPH Adekemi Ogultala, MD Maqdooda Merchant MSc, MA.
Chapter 12 The Analysis of Categorical Data and Goodness-of-Fit Tests.
EVIDENCE ABOUT DIAGNOSTIC TESTS Min H. Huang, PT, PhD, NCS.
Risk Assessment Farrokh Alemi, Ph.D.. Session Objectives 1.Discuss the role of risk assessment in the TQM process. 2.Describe the five severity indices.
Statistical test for Non continuous variables. Dr L.M.M. Nunn.
Sample Size Determination in Studies Where Health State Utility Assessments Are Compared Across Groups & Time Barbara H Hanusa 1,2 Christopher R H Hanusa.
Economics 173 Business Statistics Lecture 4 Fall, 2001 Professor J. Petry
Diagnostic Tests Afshin Ostovar Bushehr University of Medical Sciences Bushehr, /7/20151.
Diagnostic Tests Studies 87/3/2 “How to read a paper” workshop Kamran Yazdani, MD MPH.
Organization of statistical research. The role of Biostatisticians Biostatisticians play essential roles in designing studies, analyzing data and.
Heart Disease Example Male residents age Two models examined A) independence 1)logit(╥) = α B) linear logit 1)logit(╥) = α + βx¡
Postgraduate books recommended by Degree Management and Postgraduate Education Bureau, Ministry of Education Medical Statistics (the 2nd edition) 孙振球 主.
Kin 304 Descriptive Statistics & the Normal Distribution
BIOSTATISTICS Lecture 2. The role of Biostatisticians Biostatisticians play essential roles in designing studies, analyzing data and creating methods.
BackgroundResults GME completed all design, start-up, reviews, assessment tool and inter-program comparisons, statistics PDs completed the ‘field work’
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Oregon Monica Hunsberger, MPH, RD, PhD 1, Rebecca J. Donatelle, PhD 2, Kenneth D. Rosenberg,
Thursday Case of the Day History: The hypothetical results from a clinical trial of computer-aided detection (CADe) used in mammographic screening of 5,000,000.
Six Easy Steps for an ANOVA 1) State the hypothesis 2) Find the F-critical value 3) Calculate the F-value 4) Decision 5) Create the summary table 6) Put.
Copyright restrictions may apply JAMA Pediatrics Journal Club Slides: Preoperative Anemia and Postoperative Mortality in Neonates Goobie SM, Faraoni D,
Methods of Presenting and Interpreting Information Class 9.
Advisor Dr. Linda Graf, DNP, CNM, WHNP-C, APN, RN
Service-related research: Therapy outcomes audit
Quality of Electronic Emergency Department Data: How Good Are They?
CONCLUSIONS / PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
BPK 304W Descriptive Statistics & the Normal Distribution
Lako S, Daka A, Nurka T, Dedej T, Memishaj S
Kin 304 Descriptive Statistics & the Normal Distribution
Patient Registries and Health Outcomes in Diabetes: A Retrospective Study Nipa Shah, MD1; Fern Webb, PhD1; Liane Hannah, BSH1; Carmen Smotherman, MS2;
Daily Stress, Coping, and Nocturnal Blood Pressure Dipping
Impact of State Reporting Laws on Central Line– Associated Bloodstream Infection Rates in U.S. Adult Intensive Care Units Hangsheng Liu, Carolyn T. A.
Evaluation of the metrological quality of medico-administrative data for perinatal indicators: a pilot study in three French university hospitals K.Goueslard1.
A. Khan, V. R. N. Ramoutar, B. Bassaw
Foroutan N1,2, Muratov S1,2, Levine M1,2
Georgia Southern University 2014 Research Symposium
The Utilization of Sequential Compression Devices Among Pregnant Women
Introduction to Inferential Statistics
Chelsea Stellmach, MS with Alison DiValerio, MS, RN
Dr. Muhammad Ajmal Zahid Chairman, Department of Psychiatry,
BPK 304W Descriptive Statistics & the Normal Distribution
Aiying Chen, Scott Patterson, Fabrice Bailleux and Ehab Bassily
Monthly Journal article review: Vimmi Kang PGY 2
Chi Square (2) Dr. Richard Jackson
ERRORS, CONFOUNDING, and INTERACTION
One way ANOVA One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is used to test the significance difference of mean of one dependent variable across more than two.
EAST GRADE course 2019 Introduction to Meta-Analysis
Correlation and the Pearson r
Virginia Maternal Mortality Data Quality & Data Collection
ICARE Trial Survey Post-Analysis
Identifying Low-Risk Patients with Pulmonary Embolism Suitable For Outpatient Treatment A VERITY Registry Pilot Study N Scriven, T Farren, S Bacon, T.
—ROC curves for each simple test compared with NCS (gold standard) plotting the sensitivity versus 1-specificity (the false-positive rate) for different.
Is TCAR best under LA or GA
Chantal Nelson BORN Annual Conference April 25, 2017
Presentation transcript:

Validation of a Scoring System for Near-Miss (life-threatening) Maternal Morbidity

MT Sullivan 1, A El-Mohandes 2, S Zane 3, R Bender 1, A Klouj 2, C Macri 2, N Sathe 1, S Bathgate 2, P Urso 2, K Spagnola 1 1 RTI International, Rockville, MD and Research Triangle Park, NC. 2 George Washington University Medical Center, Washington DC. 3 Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.

Abstract Introduction: The ability to study near-miss maternal morbidity (NM) allows researchers to better understand ways to prevent deaths and decrease morbidity during pregnancy. The objective of this work was to validate a published scoring system designed to identify women with NM at delivery by comparing its results to those produced from scoring a different dataset. Methods: The authors used a clinical database including all deliveries at a tertiary care center in Washington DC. Experienced clinicians made morbidity determinations by review of case information for 443 deliveries that included all those with moderate or greater morbidity. The previously published scoring system was applied to these cases and the sensitivity and specificity of each of the 7 options was compared to previously published values.

Abstract (cont.) Results: Each of the 7 options had sensitivity similar to those previously published in the ability to distinguish NM cases from those with severe or moderate morbidity. Five options (those with > 2 factors) achieved 100% sensitivity. The option that included all 5 factors had the best performance: 100% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Specificities ranged from 66-83%, and for 6 options were significantly lower than published values. Conclusions: The authors concluded that the published scoring system developed to identify NM was valid in a large delivery population, accepting that sensitivity is more important than specificity for identifying NM. This scoring system may be useful for quality assurance purposes, monitoring trends in maternal morbidity, epidemiologic study, resource planning, and health services research.

Background The continuum of maternal morbidity begins with a normal healthy pregnancy and ends with death. Maternal deaths are rare events. Near-miss maternal morbidity (NM) is defined as complications of pregnancy so severe as to be imminently life-threatening (i.e. the patient nearly died). A conceptual framework and scoring system was developed at University of Illinois-Chicago to identify cases of NM in their patient population, and to thereby differentiate these cases from those with less severe maternal morbidity. Our study objective: To validate the UIC scoring system, designed to identify women with NM, by using a different patient population—that of George Washington University Medical Center in Washington DC.

The Studies 1)The published scoring system was developed and optimized by investigators at the University of Illinois at Chicago. 1-2 This will be referred to as the Chicago study. 2)The current validation analysis utilized delivery data from a perinatal database maintained at the George Washington University Medical Center in Washington DC, which will be referred to as the DC study.

Methods I. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework that supports the validation study design. The DC perinatal database included a patient record for every delivery at George Washington University Medical Center between 1990 – 2004.

Methods II. The validation sample (DC sample) was selected from the database using an Organ System Failure in Obstetrics Score based on severity of the mother’s condition at delivery. This index includes organ system failures plus other modifiers such as:  obesity  diabetes  pregnancy-induced hypertension. oAll cases with scores > 1.5 (out of 5) were included. oStratified random sampling was used to select cases with lesser scores.

Methods III. A.Clinician case review 1.The DC sample (n=443 deliveries) was subjected to case review by clinicians. 1.Each case was classified by morbidity as either: near-miss (NM), severe (SM), moderate (MM), or other (OM).

Methods IV. B.Scoring system 1.The Chicago study’s scoring system was applied to each case. 2.For each case, the total score for each of the 7 different scoring options was calculated as the weighted sum of the clinical factors present*. Clinical factors in Chicago scoring system include:  multiple organ system failure  ICU admission  blood transfusion  extended intubation  surgical intervention 3.The score determined whether the system identified a case as NM. This was compared with the clinician’s determination for each scoring option. * Refer to table: Factors and weights for each of the scoring system options.

Methods V. Sensitivity = scoring system NM x 100%. true NM Specificity = scoring system NM x 100%. non-NM Fisher’s Exact Test was used to compare the sensitivity/specificity of the 7 scoring options in the DC sample with those of the Chicago sample.

Fig 1. Conceptual Framework Supporting Specific Aims of Validation Study Descriptive Statistics DC Perinatal Database DC Sample Qualitative Clinical Case Review Severe Morbidity Near-Miss Morbidity Moderate Morbidity Other (not including deaths) Validation of Chicago study Scoring System options Near-Miss Morbidity Severe Morbidity Moderate Morbidity More severe Less severe

Equivalent Sensitivity/ Reduced Specificity  Explain Specificity Differences  Validation Successful Equivalent Sensitivity/ Specificity  Validation Successful Significant Difference in Sensitivity (p  0.05) (if lower than GR)  Validation Fails Perform additional exploratory analysis of weights and variables Best Alternative Model Calculation of Sensitivity and Specificity using Clinical Review as Gold Standard

DC study deliveries: Descriptive statistics for selected demographic and health indicator variables

DC deliveries: Descriptive statistics for selected demographic and health indicator variables (cont.)

Factors and weights for each of the scoring system options

Distribution of the five factors by morbidity in the DC sample

Frequency of the five factors in the Chicago and DC samples across morbidity categories

*True Near-miss was determined by clinical case review. Note: Differences in specificity were determined to be due to differing morbidity classification methods between the Chicago and DC studies. Scoring System Chicago SampleDC Sample Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) True Near-miss* (n = 22) False Near-miss (Severe Morbidity: n=164) SensitivitySpecificityTrue Near-miss* (n=15) False Near- miss (Severe and Moderate Morbidity combined: n=127) (%)p p 5-factor factor factor < factor A factor B factor A < factor B Scoring system results compared to case review determination for Chicago (near-miss versus severe morbidity) and DC (near-miss versus severe and moderate morbidity combined) samples

Scoring System Cut-Off Points A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for the 5-factor scoring option results to determine the optimal cut-off point for identifying NM cases in this scoring option. The Chicago study cut-off point of 8 was confirmed.

Limitations The ability of the scoring system to differentiate near-miss morbidity was not identical between the Chicago and DC sample populations, for reasons including: Methods of qualitative determination of morbidity differed due to lack of a gold standard. An overall difference in prenatal care and pre- pregnancy maternal health may have existed due to demographic differences between the two populations. Lack of information regarding the lower boundary of the D.C. study severe morbidity group.

Conclusions The authors concluded that the published scoring system developed to identify NM was valid in a large delivery population. Although the specificities were lower than the published values, the authors felt that sensitivity was of greater importance to this validation and to the potential applications of such a scoring system. Since NM is a rare event, and sensitivity is of greater importance, some of the scoring options requiring fewer clinical factors may be more easily implemented by some institutions. This scoring system may be useful for quality assurance purposes, monitoring trends in maternal morbidity, resource planning, epidemiologic study, and health services research.

References 1. Geller SE, Rosenberg D, Cox S, Brown M, Simonson L, Kilpatrick S. (2004) A scoring system identified near-miss maternal morbidity during pregnancy. J Clin Epi 57: Geller SE, Rosenberg D, Cox S, Kilpatrick S. (2002) Defining a conceptual framework for near-miss maternal morbidity. JAMWA 57(3):