Why is the outcome of transient ischaemic attacks different in different groups of patients?

G J Hankey, M S Dennis, J M Slattery, C P Warlow

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The outcomes of each of three large cohorts of patients with transient ischaemic attacks, which were studied in the same country at much the same time with the same methods, were compared and found to be quite different from each other. The differences in outcome were related not only to different strategies of treatment but also to differences in the prevalence and level of important prognostic factors (for example, case mix) and other factors such a the time delay from transient ischaemic attack to entry into the study and the play of chance. The implications for purchasers of health care are that they cannot rely solely on non-randomised comparisons of outcome of patients treated in competing units as a measure of the quality of care (which has only rather modest effects) without accounting for other factors that may influence outcome such as the nature of the illness, the case mix, observer bias, and the play of chance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1107-11
Number of pages5
JournalBritish Medical Journal Open Access (Online )
Volume306
Issue number6885
Publication statusPublished - 24 Apr 1993

Fingerprint

Diagnosis-Related Groups
Transient Ischemic Attack
Observer Variation
Quality of Health Care
Delivery of Health Care
Therapeutics

Cite this

@article{7cba33036b374431b7d0dd2ac62ca9da,
title = "Why is the outcome of transient ischaemic attacks different in different groups of patients?",
abstract = "The outcomes of each of three large cohorts of patients with transient ischaemic attacks, which were studied in the same country at much the same time with the same methods, were compared and found to be quite different from each other. The differences in outcome were related not only to different strategies of treatment but also to differences in the prevalence and level of important prognostic factors (for example, case mix) and other factors such a the time delay from transient ischaemic attack to entry into the study and the play of chance. The implications for purchasers of health care are that they cannot rely solely on non-randomised comparisons of outcome of patients treated in competing units as a measure of the quality of care (which has only rather modest effects) without accounting for other factors that may influence outcome such as the nature of the illness, the case mix, observer bias, and the play of chance.",
keywords = "Aged, Aspirin/therapeutic use, Cohort Studies, Female, Health Services Research/methods, Humans, Ischemic Attack, Transient/drug therapy, Male, Middle Aged, Odds Ratio, Outcome Assessment (Health Care)/statistics & numerical data, Prognosis, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, United Kingdom",
author = "Hankey, {G J} and Dennis, {M S} and Slattery, {J M} and Warlow, {C P}",
year = "1993",
month = "4",
day = "24",
language = "English",
volume = "306",
pages = "1107--11",
journal = "BMJ: British Medical Journal",
issn = "0959-535X",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "6885",

}

Why is the outcome of transient ischaemic attacks different in different groups of patients? / Hankey, G J; Dennis, M S; Slattery, J M; Warlow, C P.

In: British Medical Journal Open Access (Online ), Vol. 306, No. 6885, 24.04.1993, p. 1107-11.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why is the outcome of transient ischaemic attacks different in different groups of patients?

AU - Hankey, G J

AU - Dennis, M S

AU - Slattery, J M

AU - Warlow, C P

PY - 1993/4/24

Y1 - 1993/4/24

N2 - The outcomes of each of three large cohorts of patients with transient ischaemic attacks, which were studied in the same country at much the same time with the same methods, were compared and found to be quite different from each other. The differences in outcome were related not only to different strategies of treatment but also to differences in the prevalence and level of important prognostic factors (for example, case mix) and other factors such a the time delay from transient ischaemic attack to entry into the study and the play of chance. The implications for purchasers of health care are that they cannot rely solely on non-randomised comparisons of outcome of patients treated in competing units as a measure of the quality of care (which has only rather modest effects) without accounting for other factors that may influence outcome such as the nature of the illness, the case mix, observer bias, and the play of chance.

AB - The outcomes of each of three large cohorts of patients with transient ischaemic attacks, which were studied in the same country at much the same time with the same methods, were compared and found to be quite different from each other. The differences in outcome were related not only to different strategies of treatment but also to differences in the prevalence and level of important prognostic factors (for example, case mix) and other factors such a the time delay from transient ischaemic attack to entry into the study and the play of chance. The implications for purchasers of health care are that they cannot rely solely on non-randomised comparisons of outcome of patients treated in competing units as a measure of the quality of care (which has only rather modest effects) without accounting for other factors that may influence outcome such as the nature of the illness, the case mix, observer bias, and the play of chance.

KW - Aged

KW - Aspirin/therapeutic use

KW - Cohort Studies

KW - Female

KW - Health Services Research/methods

KW - Humans

KW - Ischemic Attack, Transient/drug therapy

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Odds Ratio

KW - Outcome Assessment (Health Care)/statistics & numerical data

KW - Prognosis

KW - Time Factors

KW - Treatment Outcome

KW - United Kingdom

M3 - Article

VL - 306

SP - 1107

EP - 1111

JO - BMJ: British Medical Journal

JF - BMJ: British Medical Journal

SN - 0959-535X

IS - 6885

ER -