Mortality at For-Profit Versus Not-For-Profit Hemodialysis Centers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Health Services Pub Date : 2021-07-01 Epub Date: 2020-12-15 DOI:10.1177/0020731420980682
Samuel Dickman, Reza Mirza, Maryam Kandi, Michael A Incze, Lorin Dodbiba, Raad Yameen, Arnav Agarwal, Ying Zhang, Rakhshan Kamran, Rachel Couban, Gordon Guyatt, Steven Hanna
{"title":"Mortality at For-Profit Versus Not-For-Profit Hemodialysis Centers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Samuel Dickman,&nbsp;Reza Mirza,&nbsp;Maryam Kandi,&nbsp;Michael A Incze,&nbsp;Lorin Dodbiba,&nbsp;Raad Yameen,&nbsp;Arnav Agarwal,&nbsp;Ying Zhang,&nbsp;Rakhshan Kamran,&nbsp;Rachel Couban,&nbsp;Gordon Guyatt,&nbsp;Steven Hanna","doi":"10.1177/0020731420980682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) hemodialysis facilities. We searched 10 databases for studies published between January 2001 to December 2019 that compared mortality at private hemodialysis facilities. We included observational studies directly comparing adjusted mortality rates between FP and NFP private hemodialysis providers in any language or country. We excluded evaluations of dialysis facilities that changed their profit status, studies with overlapping data, and studies that failed to adjust for patient age and some measure of clinical severity. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts and the full text of potentially eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving disagreement by discussion. We included nine observational studies of hemodialysis facilities representing 1,163,144 patient-years. In pooled random-effects meta-analysis, the odds ratio of mortality in FP relative to NFP facilities was 1.07 (95% CI 1.04-1.11). Patients at FP hemodialysis facilities have 7 percent greater odds of death annually than patients with similar risk profiles at NFP facilities. Approximately 3,800 excess deaths might be averted annually if U.S. FP hemodialysis operators matched NFP mortality rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":54959,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Services","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0020731420980682","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Services","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731420980682","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) hemodialysis facilities. We searched 10 databases for studies published between January 2001 to December 2019 that compared mortality at private hemodialysis facilities. We included observational studies directly comparing adjusted mortality rates between FP and NFP private hemodialysis providers in any language or country. We excluded evaluations of dialysis facilities that changed their profit status, studies with overlapping data, and studies that failed to adjust for patient age and some measure of clinical severity. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts and the full text of potentially eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving disagreement by discussion. We included nine observational studies of hemodialysis facilities representing 1,163,144 patient-years. In pooled random-effects meta-analysis, the odds ratio of mortality in FP relative to NFP facilities was 1.07 (95% CI 1.04-1.11). Patients at FP hemodialysis facilities have 7 percent greater odds of death annually than patients with similar risk profiles at NFP facilities. Approximately 3,800 excess deaths might be averted annually if U.S. FP hemodialysis operators matched NFP mortality rates.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
营利性与非营利性血液透析中心的死亡率:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估营利性(FP)和非营利性(NFP)血液透析设施之间风险调整死亡率的差异。我们检索了2001年1月至2019年12月期间发表的10个数据库,这些研究比较了私人血液透析设施的死亡率。我们纳入了观察性研究,直接比较了任何语言或国家的FP和NFP私人血液透析提供者之间的调整死亡率。我们排除了透析机构改变其盈利状况的评估,数据重叠的研究,以及未能调整患者年龄和某些临床严重程度的研究。成对的审稿人独立筛选所有可能符合条件的研究的标题、摘要和全文,提取数据,评估偏倚风险,通过讨论解决分歧。我们纳入了9项血液透析设施的观察性研究,共1,163,144例患者年。在合并随机效应荟萃分析中,计划生育患者与非计划生育患者的死亡率比值比为1.07 (95% CI 1.04-1.11)。在FP血液透析设施的患者比在NFP设施具有相似风险概况的患者每年死亡的几率高7%。如果美国计划生育血液透析操作员的死亡率与国家计划生育死亡率相匹配,每年可能会避免大约3800例额外死亡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
41
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Health Services is a peer-reviewed journal that contains articles on health and social policy, political economy and sociology, history and philosophy, ethics and law in the areas of health and well-being. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
The Violence of Non-Violence: A Systematic Mixed-Studies Review on the Health Effects of Sanctions. Life and Health Under Israeli Military Occupation During COVID-19: Report from the West Bank, Occupied Palestinian Territory. Minority Rule: A Lethal Threat to the People's Health, Democracy, and our Planet. Private Equity Looting of U.S. Health Care: An Under-Recognized and Uncontrolled Scourge. An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Household Demographics on Diarrhea Morbidity in Children Aged 0 to 48 Months in Namibia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1