Survival analysis methods for analysis of hospitalization data: Application to COVID-19 patient hospitalization experience

  1. Paul J. Rathouz
  2. Victoria Valencia
  3. Patrick Chang
  4. David Morton
  5. Haoxiang Yang
  6. Ozge Surer
  7. Spencer Fox
  8. Lauren Ancel Meyers
  9. Elizabeth C. Matsui
  10. Alex B. Haynes

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

During most of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic gave rise to considerable and growing numbers of hospitalizations across most of the U.S. Typical COVID-19 hospitalization data, including length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) use, mechanical ventilation (Vent), and in-hospital mortality provide clearly interpretable health care endpoints that can be compared across population strata. They capture the resources consumed for the care of COVID-19 patients, and analysis of these endpoints can be used for resource planning at the local level. Yet, hospitalization data embody novel features that require careful statistical treatment to be useful in this context. Specifically, statistical models must meet three goals: (i) They should mesh with and inform mathematical epidemiologic or agent-based models of the COVID-19 experience in the population. (ii) They need to handle administrative censoring of hospitalization experience when data are extracted and downloaded for a given patient before that patient’s hospitalization experience has terminated. And, (iii) models need to handle risks for competing events, the occurrence of one blocking the possibility of the other(s). For example, live discharge from the hospital “competes with” (i.e., blocks) in-hospital mortality. We have adapted approaches from the survival analysis literature to address these challenges in order to better understand and quantify the population experience in hospital with respect to length of stay, ICU, Vent use and so on. Using hospitalization data from a large U.S. metropolitan region, in this report, we show how standard techniques from survival analysis can be brought to bear to address these challenges and yield interpretable results. In the breakout/discussion, we will discuss formulation, estimation and inference, and interpretation of competing risks models.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.14.21255511: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.14.21255511 on medRxiv