Derivation and out-of-sample validation of a modeling system to predict length of surgery

Abstract Background We performed a retrospective study to compare the precision of a regression model (RM) system with the precision of the standard method of surgical length prediction using historical means (HM). Methods Data were collected on patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy and lowe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe American journal of surgery Vol. 204; no. 5; pp. 563 - 568
Main Authors Kougias, Panagiotis, M.D, Tiwari, Vikram, Ph.D, Orcutt, Sonia, M.D, Chen, Amber, Pisimisis, George, M.D, Barshes, Neal R., M.D., M.P.H, Bechara, Carlos F., M.D., M.S, Berger, David H., M.D., M.H.C.M
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.11.2012
Elsevier
Elsevier Limited
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract Background We performed a retrospective study to compare the precision of a regression model (RM) system with the precision of the standard method of surgical length prediction using historical means (HM). Methods Data were collected on patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy and lower-extremity bypass. Multiple linear regression was used to model the operative time length (OTL). The precision of the RM versus HM in predicting case length then was compared in a validation dataset. Results With respect to carotid endarterectomy, surgeon, surgical experience, and cardiac surgical risk were significant predictors of OTL. For lower-extremity bypass, surgeon, use of prosthetic conduit, and performance of a sequential bypass or hybrid procedure were significant predictors of OTL. The precision of out-of-sample prediction was greater for the RM system compared with HM for both procedures. Conclusions A regression methodology to predict case length appears promising in decreasing uncertainty about surgical case length.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0002-9610
1879-1883
DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.07.013