This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In Reply: The validity of comparisons of rates of risk-adjusted clinical outcomes as measures of hospital performance can be biased by (1) the exclusion of important risk factors from predictive equations, (2) the improper use of hospital-acquired complications as risk factors,¹ and (3) inconsistent reporting of valid risk factors included in predictive equations. Our study was designed to address the first of these sources of bias, took great care to avoid the second, and, as Drs Heller and Schnell correctly observe, did not address the third directly. However, potential clinical data elements were grouped from the most objective (ie, numerical laboratory data) to the least objective (ie, composite scores such as ASA Class), and more subjective variables were included in predictive equations only when they added significant predictive power to equations containing more objective clinical information. This approach ensured that more consistently documented clinical data would not be displaced from . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Michael Pine, MD, MBA
mpine@aol.com
Michael Pine and Associates Inc
Chicago, Ill

Harmon S. Jordan, ScD
Abt Associates Inc
Cambridge, Mass

Anne Elixhauser, PhD
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Rockville, Md

Donald E. Fry, MD
Michael Pine and Associates Inc

David C. Hoaglin, PhD
Abt Associates Inc

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?