2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.01.046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Absolute vs relative improvements in congenital diaphragmatic hernia survival: what happened to “hidden mortality”

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
48
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, survival estimates derived from institutional or unit-based data lend themselves to multiple biases. A recent careful evaluation of survival variables comparing all institution and population data from the province of Ontario, Canada, demonstrated a clear discrepancy in institution-based reporting [86,87]. The number of deaths reported by the institutions was found to be 32% less than that of the population data.…”
Section: Long-term Prognosis Of Cdh Infancymentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, survival estimates derived from institutional or unit-based data lend themselves to multiple biases. A recent careful evaluation of survival variables comparing all institution and population data from the province of Ontario, Canada, demonstrated a clear discrepancy in institution-based reporting [86,87]. The number of deaths reported by the institutions was found to be 32% less than that of the population data.…”
Section: Long-term Prognosis Of Cdh Infancymentioning
confidence: 96%
“…1 The overall survival of infants with this condition is highly variable, [2][3][4][5][6] as is their care, although the standardization of postnatal care has evolved over the years. 7 This is illustrated by the dramatic differences in survival between infants undergoing patch repair compared with those amenable to primary repair.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is reflected by the lower survival rates of 30-70% [16,19,[27][28][29][30][31] reported by multi-center studies compared to single institution reports of 80-88% [18,32,33] . Yet, multi-center studies are still hindered by the many biases that impede institution-based research, as shown in the higher survival rates in multi-center studies [16,19,[27][28][29][30][31] compared to population-based reports [20,28,[34][35][36] .…”
Section: Institution-based Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is evident in published research that population studies have consistently quoted lower survival outcomes than institution-based studies [16][17][18][19] due to the presence of a 'hidden mortality' [20] . This apparent discrepancy raises the question of whether CDH outcomes are ade- quately represented by institutional data or if population data should be used to provide a more comprehensive and accurate depiction of CDH endpoints.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%