The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of administrative data or clinical databases as predictors of risk of death in hospital: comparison of models
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare risk prediction models for death in hospital based on an administrative database with published results based on data derived from three national clinical databases: the national cardiac surgical database, the national vascular database and the colorectal cancer study. DESIGN: Analysis of inpatient hospital episode statistics. Predictive model developed using multiple logistic regression. SETTING: NHS hospital trusts in England. PATIENTS: All patients admitted to an NHS hospital within England for isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, and colorectal excision for cancer from 1996-7 to 2003-4. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Deaths in hospital. Performance of models assessed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve scores measuring discrimination (<0.7=poor, 0.7-0.8=reasonable, >0.8=good) and both Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics and standardised residuals measuring goodness of fit. RESULTS: During the study period 152 523 cases of isolated CABG with 3247 deaths in hospital (2.1%), 12 781 repairs of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (5987 deaths, 46.8%), 31 705 repairs of unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (3246 deaths, 10.2%), and 144,370 colorectal resections for cancer (10,424 deaths, 7.2%) were recorded. The power of the complex predictive model was comparable with that of models based on clinical datasets with ROC curve scores of 0.77 (v 0.78 from clinical database) for isolated CABG, 0.66 (v 0.65) and 0.74 (v 0.70) for repairs of ruptured and unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, respectively, and 0.80 (v 0.78) for colorectal excision for cancer. Calibration plots generally showed good agreement between observed and predicted mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected administrative data can be used to predict risk with similar discrimination to clinical databases. The creative use of such data to adjust for case mix would be useful for monitoring healthcare performance and could usefully complement clinical databases. Further work on other procedures and diagnoses could result in a suite of models for performance adjusted for case mix for a range of specialties and procedures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Teasdale, G. M. (2002) · British Journal of Neurosurgery · doi:10.1080/02688690220148815 · Cited by 1,063
Cited by
Jhanji, S., Thomas, B., Ely, A., Watson, D., Hinds, C. J., & Pearse, R. M. (2008) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05560.x · Cited by 259
Identification of incident injuries in hospital discharge registers
Gedeborg, R., Engquist, H., Berglund, L., & Michaëlsson, K. (2008) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e318181319e · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Aylin, P., Bottle, A., & Majeed, A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2007-04-23
- Volume
- 334
- Issue
- 7602
- Pages
- 1044
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2069664309
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 53.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Use of administrative data or clinical databases as predictors of risk of death in hospital: comparison of models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.39168.496366.55
- The paper
- Aylin, P., Bottle, A., & Majeed, A. (2007). Use of administrative data or clinical databases as predictors of risk of death in hospital: comparison of models. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39168.496366.55
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.