WHY IS THE OUTCOME OF TRANSIENT ISCHEMIC ATTACKS DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PATIENTS

GJ HANKEY, MS DENNIS, JM SLATTERY, CP WARLOW

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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)1107-1111
Number of pages5
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume306
Issue number6885
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Apr 1993
Externally publishedYes

Cite this

HANKEY, GJ ; DENNIS, MS ; SLATTERY, JM ; WARLOW, CP. / WHY IS THE OUTCOME OF TRANSIENT ISCHEMIC ATTACKS DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PATIENTS. In: British Medical Journal. 1993 ; Vol. 306, No. 6885. pp. 1107-1111.
@article{b01eb9ed500c4924877cb68f0a444766,
title = "WHY IS THE OUTCOME OF TRANSIENT ISCHEMIC 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 = "ISCHEMIC ATTACKS, ATRIAL-FIBRILLATION, RISK FACTOR, PROGNOSIS, OXFORDSHIRE, PREVALENCE, STROKE",
author = "GJ HANKEY and MS DENNIS and JM SLATTERY and CP WARLOW",
year = "1993",
month = "4",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.306.6885.1107",
language = "English",
volume = "306",
pages = "1107--1111",
journal = "BMJ: British Medical Journal",
issn = "0959-535X",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "6885",

}

WHY IS THE OUTCOME OF TRANSIENT ISCHEMIC ATTACKS DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PATIENTS. / HANKEY, GJ; DENNIS, MS; SLATTERY, JM; WARLOW, CP.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 306, No. 6885, 24.04.1993, p. 1107-1111.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - WHY IS THE OUTCOME OF TRANSIENT ISCHEMIC ATTACKS DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PATIENTS

AU - HANKEY, GJ

AU - DENNIS, MS

AU - SLATTERY, JM

AU - WARLOW, CP

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 - ISCHEMIC ATTACKS

KW - ATRIAL-FIBRILLATION

KW - RISK FACTOR

KW - PROGNOSIS

KW - OXFORDSHIRE

KW - PREVALENCE

KW - STROKE

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.306.6885.1107

DO - 10.1136/bmj.306.6885.1107

M3 - Article

VL - 306

SP - 1107

EP - 1111

JO - BMJ: British Medical Journal

JF - BMJ: British Medical Journal

SN - 0959-535X

IS - 6885

ER -