Why the study?
Observational data sources such as registries and claims-based data sets come with limitations that require appropriate statistical methods to address confounding and biases in anesthesia health services research.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Overview of common statistical methodologies
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Registry analyses in anesthesia warrant rigorous bias mitigation; leaves open standardized methods for valid observational inference.
The use of large data sources such as registries and claims-based data sets to perform health services research in anesthesia has increased considerably, ultimately informing clinical decisions, supporting evaluation of policy or intervention changes, and guiding further research. These observational data sources come with limitations that must be addressed to effectively examine all aspects of health care services and generate new individual- and population-level knowledge. Several statistical methods are growing in popularity to address these limitations, with the goal of mitigating confounding and other biases. In this article, we provide a brief overview of common statistical methods used in health services research when using observational data sources, guidance on their interpretation, and examples of how they have been applied to anesthesia-related health services research. Methods described involve regression, propensity scoring, instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, interrupted time series, and machine learning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Illescas et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: