Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS): Its Strengths, Limitations, and Role in Informing Practices and Policies : Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Journal Logo

Advanced Search
Public Policy Series

Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS)

Its Strengths, Limitations, and Role in Informing Practices and Policies

Robinson, Bruce M.; Bieber, Brian; Pisoni, Ronald L.; Port, Friedrich K.

Author Information

Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Correspondence: Dr. Bruce M. Robinson, Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, 340 E. Huron Street, Suite 300, Ann Arbor, MI 48104. Email: [email protected]

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 7(11):p 1897-1905, November 2012. | DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04940512
  • Free

Introduction

The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) is a leading source of up-to-date, representative, and comprehensive data on hemodialysis practice and patient outcomes worldwide. Since its inception, the study’s primary aim has been to identify practices that extend survival and improve health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) for hemodialysis patients. The DOPPS has yielded research findings directly relevant to patients, health care providers, and policy makers. The following provides an overview of the study’s design and analytic approach, selected research findings and relevance to policy, new directions, and ways that the study complements other sources of dialysis data.

DOPPS Overview

DOPPS 1 began in 1996 in the United States and in 1998–1999 in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. In DOPPS 2 (2002–2005), 3 (2006–2008), and 4 (2009–2011), these countries were joined by Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Belgium, and Sweden. The launch of DOPPS 5 is underway in 2012, with new directions and additional countries as detailed later in this article. DOPPS 1–4 followed 300–350 facilities in each study phase, having now collected basic demographic and mortality (census) data for >200,000 patient-years and detailed data for >75,000 patient-years. Additional details are available at http://www.dopps.org.

Funding for the DOPPS was initiated by Amgen in 1996 in support of a “longevity initiative.” Funding for Japan DOPPS has been provided solely by Kyowa Hakko Kirin since 1999. Outside of Japan, funding was provided solely by Amgen through 2008, but since 2009, has been provided by a consortium of sponsors including Amgen as well as Abbott, Baxter, Fresenius Medical Care, Sanofi Renal, and Vifor Fresenius Renal Pharma (current sponsors). Recent expansion of the DOPPS programs (into new countries, CKD, and peritoneal dialysis [PD]) has been made possible by directed sponsor support. All funding support is provided without restrictions on publications and preserves the independence of our scientific research.

DOPPS Goals, Design, and Data

DOPPS research goals are centered on the hypothesis that measurable differences in dialysis facility practices influence patient longevity, morbidity, and HR-QOL. Identifying opportunities for improvement is a primary motivation and guides research priorities (1,2). DOPPS research findings derive logically from key features of the study design. The DOPPS is a prospective cohort study with data from a random sample of patients within a random sample of hemodialysis units in each participating country. We use a stratified selection process to represent the composition of facility types (e.g., free-standing, hospital based, satellite, etc.) and regions within each country. Descriptions of DOPPS sampling and methods have been published (1,3,4).

Random sampling to enroll a representative sample of dialysis units was quite novel among epidemiologic studies at study launch. This approach supports the accurate description of actual practice in national hemodialysis populations and ensures that findings can be generalized to these populations. It also maximizes variation in practices and outcomes in order to enhance the analytic ability to identify important, potentially causal associations. We have learned much from the often surprising differences in practice among participating countries.

The DOPPS captures detailed longitudinal patient- and facility-level information using a common protocol and standardized data collection instruments. With each new phase of the DOPPS, operational flexibility allows questionnaire refinement and new substudies to test new hypotheses and keep the study current. The study collects census data, including demographic and survival data, for all patients in each DOPPS facility. For enrolled patients, detailed longitudinal data are collected that include demographics, numerous comorbidities, medications and dosing, monthly laboratory values, vascular access type and procedures, cause-specific hospitalizations, date and cause of death, and others. The reliability of clinical data abstraction in the DOPPS was confirmed most recently by independent reabstraction from a random selection of participants in our Chinese study, as well as similar data abstraction from European study sites previously.

The DOPPS collects rich data on patient-reported outcomes, with participants completing questionnaires annually on diverse topics such as HR-QOL, recovery time after a dialysis session, satisfaction with care, medication adherence, and others. To provide facility practice information, the unit’s medical director and nurse manager complete questionnaires annually, and surveys can also be collected from other staff. Proposals for new study modules, with collection of novel facility practice data or patient-reported data, preferably with validated survey instruments, are encouraged.

With respect to clinical data, the DOPPS has chosen explicitly not to collect additional biomedical tests (laboratory, radiographic, or other) beyond those ordered for routine clinical care, to avoid biasing the study toward selection of highly motivated (i.e., nonrepresentative) patients or facilities, or to influence practice among participating facilities. Because the DOPPS does not measure bioassays centrally, measurement error may be introduced by nonstandardized measurement. However, the effect is likely small. Even in the case of parathyroid hormone (PTH) assays, most DOPPS facilities use a single assay type (e.g., in the most recent survey: 88% intact PTH, 8% bio-intact PTH, 4% unsure), and we collect data on each laboratory’s reference range, allowing for standardization to this range in sensitivity analyses.

One example of the value of a multinational study is that we have a large amount of data on bioassays measured frequently in some, but not other, countries. For example, serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are measured routinely (e.g., monthly) in most DOPPS countries but rarely in the United States. Postdialysis electrolyte levels are measured often in many countries; serum fibrinogen, B-type natriuretic peptide, and troponin levels are common in a few countries. Our large longitudinal database of CRP levels formed the basis for a recent publication describing the range of CRP levels in routine dialysis practice, as well as the added prognostic information gained by CRP even when measured along with inflammatory markers relied on in the United States such as serum albumin and ferritin levels (5). Future analysis will evaluate whether physician responses to elevated CRP levels help to improve clinical outcomes.

Reporting and Evaluating Practice Trends

The DOPPS is a unique resource to understand temporal trends in dialysis care that may occur for many reasons, including reimbursement changes, regulatory shifts, publication of key research findings, release of new practice guidelines, changes in availability or promotion of products, and so forth (6,7). In recent years, these trend data have been made readily accessible to the public, in a user-friendly format, to provide the most up-to-date and detailed source of dialysis practice data and for international comparisons. Detailed trends in dialysis care across all DOPPS countries are reported in the DOPPS Annual Report, initiated in 2009 (http://www.dopps.org/AnnualReport). In late 2010, we launched the DOPPS Practice Monitor (DPM), our flagship product to monitor US dialysis trends (http://www.dopps.org/DPM) (Figure 1).

F1-23
Figure 1:
DPM home page. The DPM home page (http://www.dopps.org/DPM) is updated every 2 months with the most recent trends in numerous US hemodialysis practices. DPM results are based on a nationally representative sample, as described in the text. DOPPS, Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study; DPM, DOPPS Practice Monitor.

DPM for US Trends

The DPM reports detailed, contemporary trends in US dialysis care from the national sample of 120–140 DOPPS facilities. Findings are updated every 4 months, with data lagged by about 4 months. Downloadable slides are also on the website. Publications include analyses of key findings after each major website update, which are accompanied by editorial comment (4,8,9).

The DPM was originally developed to report trends in dialysis care before, during, and after implementation of the new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) bundled dialysis payment system, the End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System (ESRD PPS), over January 2011 to January 2014 (10,11). Now in place, the DPM provides a mechanism for public, detailed, and up-to-date reporting of trends in care regardless of cause. An illustrative example is the June 2011 revised US Food and Drug Administration label for prescription of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) to CKD patients, followed in July 2011 by the proposed Quality Incentive Program (QIP) update to remove the hemoglobin floor of 10 g/dl. DPM data indicate dramatic changes in anemia care soon thereafter, with declines in average ESA dose and hemoglobin levels that were larger and more abrupt than after PPS implementation in January 2011. Events now or in the near future also likely to shape clinical practice include roll-out and updates of the QIP in 2012 (based on data from 2010 forward), the anticipated addition to the PPS of oral dialysis-related medications in 2014, and the release of clinical practice recommendations (e.g., Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes anemia in 2012), clinical trial findings (e.g., Evaluation of Cinacalcet HCI Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular Events in 2012), and competitor products (e.g., peginesatide in 2012) (12,13).

In addition to ESA dosing and hemoglobin level, other notable US trends we have reported from 2010 to 2012 include sizeable rises in intravenous iron dosing, ferritin levels, and PTH levels. At the same time, phosphorus levels above recommended targets remain commonplace. By raising public awareness of these findings, the DPM can help inform decisions surrounding calls to introduce QIP measures for these metrics or for consequences such as red blood cell transfusions. This helps assure that financial incentives with the PPS do not remain unchecked.

Advantages over Other Data Sources

Detailed DOPPS data, from a nationally representative sample of dialysis centers, complement data sources that may include more patients but are not representative nationally (e.g., large dialysis organization and other electronic health record data) or are limited in breadth of data (e.g., most registries and administrative data). CMS data also have limited information on incident dialysis patients and the rising percentage of patients covered primarily by private insurance or Medicare Advantage programs, because their care often does not generate Medicare claims. The DOPPS is well suited to study whether differing financial incentives among these patients will translate into differences in care. Prior DOPPS work comparing national financing for dialysis and evaluating links between incentives and patient care across the DOPPS countries has already been detailed and informative (14).

Some Caveats

DOPPS data are reported in aggregate. Facilities and facility groups are not identified individually, and the data are not intended to provide oversight of performance. Because the DOPPS is based on a sample, findings may differ slightly from national census data, and trends reported may merit confirmation with national data, in cases in which those are eventually available. In particular, estimated event rates (e.g., mortality, hospitalizations, transfusions) should be confirmed with national data. Specification of calculated variables also differs slightly from other data sources. For example, our calculation of the percentage of fistula use differs slightly from the Fistula First Initiative using CMS data (e.g., use of a new or marginally functional fistula is incompletely standardized across data sources), as does calculation of hemoglobin levels over time compared with CMS specifications for QIP measures (15,16).

Despite these considerations, we have documented that DOPPS descriptive findings are generally reflective of national dialysis data, because of attention paid to representative cross-sectional sampling and use of sampling weights to report aggregated data. Table 1 demonstrates that data from the DPM sample closely correspond to the national statistics reported by the Elab Project for 97% of US dialysis patients for the fourth quarter of 2010 (17). Similarly, we have shown close correspondence of DOPPS data for the United Kingdom with clinical practice data reported by the UK Renal Registry (18). Such comparisons continue on a regular basis.

T1-23
Table 1:
Comparisons of hemodialysis patients in the US DOPPS DPM national sample with CMS Elab census data

Identifying and Understanding International Trends

The DOPPS serves as a resource to monitor and understand temporal trends in dialysis care in each participating country, and to disentangle effects of a policy change in any one country from secular trends internationally. Some policy examples are as follows. In Japan, trends in anemia management from before to after changed ESA reimbursement in 2006, from separately billable (on a per-dose basis) to bundled within the overall dialysis reimbursement (19). This policy change was associated with reduced erythropoietin doses, increased intravenous iron use, and stable hemoglobin levels (19). In Germany, trends in care after the introduction of a weekly dialysis reimbursement rate in 2002–2003, were followed by a quality monitoring system in 2009 based on four parameters (Kt/V ≥1.2, dialysis frequency ≥3 sessions/week, dialysis session length ≥4 hours, hemoglobin ≥10 g/L). Improvements in these metrics occurred before the quality monitoring system; however, the percentage of patients with hemoglobin <10 g/L has increased in recent years (20).

The DOPPS is poised to monitor the effect of future policy changes on dialysis care in its participating countries. In the near term, examples are as follows. In Japan, reimbursement changes were enacted this year in support of hemodiafiltration. In Germany, changes to the weekly dialysis reimbursement rate and its inclusions are under consideration, as are changes to the quality monitoring system (such as adding accountability for hemodialysis catheter use, which is rising). In France, bundling of ESAs and a reimbursement change for PD are under consideration. In the United Kingdom, a tariff was recently added for hemodialysis via central venous catheter, based in part on DOPPS data demonstrating international variation in vascular access use (Figures 2 and 3). More broadly, economic uncertainty in many DOPPS Europe countries and elsewhere may have unforeseen consequences for dialysis patients. The DPM will expand soon to include Japan, and support for the DPM in Europe is currently sought to provide public reporting of up-to-date trends and international comparisons.

F2-23
Figure 2:
Distribution of vascular access type (2002–2011) among countries with rising catheter burden over time. Cross-sections of patients on dialysis >90 days at study entry, weighted by facility sampling fraction, in DOPPS 2 (2002–2004), DOPPS 3 (2005–2008), and DOPPS 4 (2009–2011). DOPPS, Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study; Aus-NZ, Australia and New Zealand; AV, arteriovenous.
F3-23
Figure 3:
Distribution of vascular access type (2002–2011) among countries with stable or decreasing catheter burden over time. Cross-sections of patients on dialysis >90 days at study entry, weighted by facility sampling fraction, in DOPPS 2 (2002–2004), DOPPS 3 (2005–2008), and DOPPS 4 (2009–2011). DOPPS, Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study; AV, arteriovenous.

Comparisons of Outcomes Internationally

The DOPPS has been a key resource to directly compare mortality across countries because of representative sampling and uniform data collection methods (1,3). One original motivation for the study was the finding of higher mortality in the United States compared with Japan and Europe based on registry data (21). DOPPS analyses confirmed that this finding persists even after very detailed adjustment for patient characteristics (22), updated with data from 2005 to 2008 in Figure 4. Data from the DOPPS, as well as national ESRD registries and the World Health Organization, indicate that international survival differences among dialysis patients are explained in part by survival differences in the respective general populations (23). More recently, a DOPPS analysis demonstrated a modifiable dialysis practice as a key cause of international variations in outcomes (24). Specifically, regional survival differences (particularly for the United States compared with Europe) were largely explained by differences in facility vascular access use: US and European facilities with similar percentages of fistula, graft, and catheter use have, on average, similar survival. In recent years, with the Fistula First Initiative, there has been a commendable increase in fistula use in the United States, whereas in several other countries, fistula use has fallen and/or catheter use has risen substantially (Figures 2 and 3) (15,25). In the context of these trends, the most recent comparisons of survival internationally will be of great interest.

F4-23
Figure 4:
Survival among hemodialysis patients by geographic region in DOPPS 3 (2005–2008), with and without adjustments for patient mix differences. Models account for facility clustering effects. n=11,329 patients. *Adjusted model accounts also for patient age, sex, years on dialysis, body mass index, smoking status, and 14 summary comorbid conditions. DOPPS, Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study; ref, reference; Eur/Aus/NZ, Europe/Australia/New Zealand; NA, North America; HR, hazard ratio.

The DOPPS is not intended to provide precise event rates, which is a mandate of registries collecting national census data (26). As in most studies, sites agreeing to participate in the DOPPS may be somewhat more motivated, and thus have somewhat higher performance on average, than other facilities. Despite this possibility, the annual mortality rates reported by the DOPPS have been similar to, or only slightly lower than, those reported by national registries (4,27–30).

Analyses of Practice Variation

From its outset, a primary aim of the DOPPS has been to identify facility practices associated with the best patient outcomes, with emphasis on practical findings. Over recent years, we have chosen statistical models that use variations in facility practice as a means to limit bias caused by differences in health status. These biases include treatment-by-indication bias, in which a beneficial treatment (e.g., longer dialysis session length) may appear to “cause” poorer survival because it is often prescribed to sicker patients; and dose-targeting bias, in which a clinical target (e.g., higher hemoglobin levels) may appear beneficial because it is more easily achieved in healthier patients (31,32).

One approach to limit these sources of bias is instrumental variable (IV) analysis, used for decades in econometrics and now increasingly in clinical studies (33–37). DOPPS analyses using IV approaches have been central to the study’s effect on hemodialysis care (38–43). Technically, our analyses utilize group-based IV analysis, which uses aggregate treatment assignments as instruments; past publications used group-treatment analysis, which is not formally an IV analysis but yields very similar, although not mathematically identical, results (44–46). The premise is that patients who are treated by different dialysis facilities, but with the same clinical indications, are “assigned” to receive different levels of treatments due to different treatment preferences, protocols, or policies. For example, facility tendencies to provide dialysis by a catheter or to prescribe a particular dialysate sodium concentration or dialysis session length are based in part on discretionary factors such as training, preference, policy, and/or unit culture. In DOPPS data, we consistently see a wide range of facility practice variation within and between countries (Figures 2, 3, and 5). Like all analyses, this analytic approach can be susceptible to bias, and we typically supplement the approach with other techniques when indicated.

F5-23
Figure 5:
Distribution of facility mean treatment time, by DOPPS region and phase. Restricted to patients not on catheters with vintage >90 days in facilities with ≥8 baseline patients with treatment time data in DOPPS 1 (1996–2001), DOPPS 2 (2002–2004), DOPPS 3 (2005–2008), and DOPPS 4 (2009–2011). DOPPS, Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study; ANZ, Australia and New Zealand.

Example: Dialysate Composition

Recent DOPPS analyses of dialysate components are illustrative of the study of discretionary practice variation to help inform optimal practice. We have found that many facilities internationally use a single concentration of dialysate sodium, calcium, bicarbonate, or even potassium for nearly all patients, and that this single concentration varies between facilities (i.e., facilities choose one concentration or another). Recent DOPPS publications evaluating dialysate components, by IV analysis and other methods, have questioned the widespread belief that lower dialysate sodium levels are beneficial (47,48), and have raised the possibility that the commonly used dialysate potassium concentration of 2 mEq/L may raise the risk of sudden death compared with higher levels (41,49). Other analyses of dialysate composition are ongoing.

Example: Dialysis Session Length

In recent years, we have seen that dialysis session length has shortened in the United States, whereas it has gotten longer in most other DOPPS countries (Figure 5). By both standard and IV analyses, the DOPPS has found that longer treatment time is associated with lower mortality in models adjusted for Kt/V, ultrafiltration rate, and other characteristics (Figure 6) (50). Facilities with longer mean treatment time also have better phosphorus and BP control (42).

F6-23
Figure 6:
Associations of dialysis session length with mortality and hospitalizations. Adjusted for age, sex, race, time on dialysis, body mass index, 13 summary comorbid conditions, residual kidney function, prescribed blood flow rate, and catheter use, stratified by country and phase of study, and accounted for facility clustering. In the standard regression model, the patient’s prescribed treatment time is the main predictor of interest. In the instrumental variable analysis, the predictor variable is the expected treatment time for a given patient based on the facility’s treatment time practice and facility case-mix. HF, heart failure; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.

In the United States, facility performance measures are not tied to dialysis session length, other than urea clearance measures that are usually achieved via high blood flow rate (BFR) and large dialyzer size even with shorter session length. Indeed, average BFR is notably higher in the United States than in Europe and is much higher than in Japan (42). As noted above, a quality monitoring system based on dialysis session length ≥4 hours was implemented in Germany in 2009, and average session length in that country is now one of the longest in DOPPS countries (20). In our opinion, short dialysis session length is now one of the key practice differences between the United States and other DOPPS countries, and its implications merit attention from research and policy perspectives.

New Directions

The DOPPS programs have expanded geographically in recent years with the launch of DOPPS in China in 2010 (with a random sample of dialysis facilities in three major cities), in Saudi Arabia in 2011 (with a random sample of facilities selected from the national registry), and in the other Gulf Cooperation Council countries in late 2012, as well as a CKD program in Brazil in late 2012 (51–53). A major goal of international expansion is to provide a detailed description of practice variation in participating nations, which we anticipate will inform allocation of resources to address unwanted practice variation and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Other additions to the DOPPS programs include the Chronic Kidney Disease Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (CKDopps) and the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (P-DOPPS). CKDopps is being launched in five countries, and P-DOPPS data collection will launch internationally in 2013. CKDopps aims to gain understanding of optimal practices, services, and processes of care for advanced CKD patients, including modality choice and the transition to dialysis care, which have been difficult to study to date. We hope CKDopps will be especially relevant because effective integration of care is likely to improve outcomes and may soon be linked to reimbursement (extending from the model of accountable care organizations) in the United States (54). P-DOPPS, launched in partnership with the International Society of Peritoneal Dialysis, will focus on the major causes of PD technique failure to identify approaches to appropriately lengthen time on therapy. The community has indicated need for this collaborative research program because there are vast differences in access to and/or outcomes on this therapy, although rigorous studies to learn about optimal practice are lacking. At the same time, new financial incentives or expected cost savings will likely increase PD use in the coming years (10,55).

The DOPPS continues to yield research findings directly relevant to patients, health care providers, and policy makers. Over 140 DOPPS manuscripts have been published in peer-reviewed journals to date, and invited DOPPS symposia are regularly featured at major national and international renal conferences. DOPPS findings have been used to support and refine clinical practice guidelines (56) and have been presented or reported to government health policy and regulatory agencies around the world. The topical areas (dialysis treatment time, facility staffing, vascular access, anemia management, dialysis dose measurement, patient-centered outcomes, etc.) have been diverse, but have leveraged our international data and analyses to identify and highlight unwanted practice variation, sharing a focus on practical findings (32,57,58). With the study’s new directions and collaborations, we seek to expand contributions toward improving longevity and quality of life for our patients.

Disclosures

B.M.R. is principal investigator for the DOPPS, and R.L.P. and F.K.P. are senior investigators with the DOPPS. All coauthors are employees of Arbor Research Collaborative for Health.

Acknowledgments

The DOPPS studies are administered by Arbor Research Collaborative for Health and supported by scientific research grants from Amgen (since 1996), Kyowa Hakko Kirin (since 1999, in Japan), Sanofi Renal (since 2009), Abbott (since 2009), Baxter (since 2011), Vifor Fresenius Renal Pharma (since 2011), and Fresenius Medical Care (since 2012), without restrictions on publications.

Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

References

1. Young EW, Goodkin DA, Mapes DL, Port FK, Keen ML, Chen K, Maroni BL, Wolfe RA, Held PJ: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS): An international hemodialysis study. Kidney Int 57[Suppl 74]: S74–S81, 2000
2. Goodkin DA, Mapes DL, Held PJ: The dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study (DOPPS): How can we improve the care of hemodialysis patients? Semin Dial 14: 157–159, 2001
3. Pisoni RL, Gillespie BW, Dickinson DM, Chen K, Kutner MH, Wolfe RA: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS): Design, data elements, and methodology. Am J Kidney Dis 44[Suppl 2]: 7–15, 2004
4. Robinson B, Fuller D, Zinsser D, Albert J, Gillespie B, Tentori F, Turenne M, Port F, Pisoni R: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) Practice Monitor: Rationale and methods for an initiative to monitor the new US bundled dialysis payment system. Am J Kidney Dis 57: 822–831, 2011
5. Bazeley J, Bieber B, Li Y, Morgenstern H, de Sequera P, Combe C, Yamamoto H, Gallagher M, Port FK, Robinson BM: C-reactive protein and prediction of 1-year mortality in prevalent hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 2452–2461, 2011
6. McFarlane PA, Pisoni RL, Eichleay MA, Wald R, Port FK, Mendelssohn D: International trends in erythropoietin use and hemoglobin levels in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 78: 215–223, 2010
7. Pauly M, Dor A, Held P: An international study of health care organization and financing for kidney disease patients. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 7: 73–318, 2007
8. Robinson BM, Fuller DS, Bieber BA, Turenne MN, Pisoni RL: The DOPPS Practice Monitor for US dialysis care: Trends through April 2011. Am J Kidney Dis 59: 309–312, 2012
9. Pisoni RL, Fuller DS, Bieber BA, Gillespie BW, Robinson BM: The DOPPS Practice Monitor for US dialysis care: Trends through August 2011. Am J Kidney Dis 60: 160–165, 2012
10. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services: Medicare program; end-stage renal disease prospective payment system. Final rule. Fed Regist 75: 49029–49214, 2010
11. US Government Accountability Office: End-Stage Renal Disease: CMS Should Monitor Access to and Quality of Dialysis Care Promptly after Implementation of New Bundled Payment System, Washington, DC, United States Government Accountability Office, 2010
12. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Anemia Work Group: KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int Suppl 2(4): 279–335, 2012
13. Evaluation of Cinacalcet HCI Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular Events. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00345839. Accessed May 14, 2012
14. Dor A, Pauly MV, Eichleay MA, Held PJ: End-stage renal disease and economic incentives: The International Study of Health Care Organization and Financing (ISHCOF). Int J Health Care Finance Econ 7: 73–111, 2007
15. Fistula First: Fistula First National Vascular Access Improvement Initiative. Available at: http://www.fistulafirst.org. Accessed May 10, 2012
16. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Quality Initiative. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/End-Stage-Renal-Disease/ESRDQualityImproveInit/index.html?redirect=/ESRDQualityImproveInit/. Accessed May 14, 2012
17. Elab Project: Renal Network 11. Available at: http://www.esrdnet11.org/Elab/. Accessed May 10, 2012
18. Rayner H, Greenwood R, MacTier R, Bragg-Gresham J, Eichleay M, Pisoni R, Port F: Estimated life expectancy of UK HD patients if clinical practice guidelines are met. Br J Renal Med 12: 11–14, 2007
19. Hasegawa T, Bragg-Gresham JL, Pisoni RL, Robinson BM, Fukuhara S, Akiba T, Saito A, Kurokawa K, Akizawa T: Changes in anemia management and hemoglobin levels following revision of a bundling policy to incorporate recombinant human erythropoietin. Kidney Int 79: 340–346, 2011
20. Kleophas W: Trends before and after the introduction of a reimbursement flat rate and a quality monitoring program: Experience from the DOPPS in Germany [Abstract]. Presented at the 49th ERA-EDTA Congress, Paris, France, May 24–27, 2012
21. Held PJ, Brunner F, Odaka M, García JR, Port FK, Gaylin DS: Five-year survival for end-stage renal disease patients in the United States, Europe, and Japan, 1982 to 1987. Am J Kidney Dis 15: 451–457, 1990
22. Goodkin DA, Bragg-Gresham JL, Koenig KG, Wolfe RA, Akiba T, Andreucci VE, Saito A, Rayner HC, Kurokawa K, Port FK, Held PJ, Young EW: Association of comorbid conditions and mortality in hemodialysis patients in Europe, Japan, and the United States: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). J Am Soc Nephrol 14: 3270–3277, 2003
23. Yoshino M, Kuhlmann MK, Kotanko P, Greenwood RN, Pisoni RL, Port FK, Jager KJ, Homel P, Augustijn H, de Charro FT, Collart F, Erek E, Finne P, Garcia-Garcia G, Grönhagen-Riska C, Ioannidis GA, Ivis F, Leivestad T, Løkkegaard H, Lopot F, Jin DC, Kramar R, Nakao T, Nandakumar M, Ramirez S, van der Sande FM, Schön S, Simpson K, Walker RG, Zaluska W, Levin NW: International differences in dialysis mortality reflect background general population atherosclerotic cardiovascular mortality. J Am Soc Nephrol 17: 3510–3519, 2006
24. Pisoni RL, Arrington CJ, Albert JM, Ethier J, Kimata N, Krishnan M, Rayner HC, Saito A, Sands JJ, Saran R, Gillespie B, Wolfe RA, Port FK: Facility hemodialysis vascular access use and mortality in countries participating in DOPPS: An instrumental variable analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 53: 475–491, 2009
25. Arbor Research Collaborative for Health: 2009 Annual Report of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study: Hemodialysis Data 1999-2008, Ann Arbor, MI, Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, 2009. Available at: http://www.dopps.org/annualreport/archives/DOPPSAR2009/index.htm
26. Karamadoukis L, Ansell D, Foley RN, McDonald SP, Tomson CR, Trpeski L, Caskey FJ: Towards case-mix-adjusted international renal registry comparisons: How can we improve data collection practice? Nephrol Dial Transplant 24: 2306–2311, 2009
27. Rayner HC, Pisoni RL, Bommer J, Canaud B, Hecking E, Locatelli F, Piera L, Bragg-Gresham JL, Feldman HI, Goodkin DA, Gillespie B, Wolfe RA, Held PJ, Port FK: Mortality and hospitalization in haemodialysis patients in five European countries: Results from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Nephrol Dial Transplant 19: 108–120, 2004
28. Nakai S, Iseki K, Itami N, Ogata S, Kazama JJ, Kimata N, Shigematsu T, Shinoda T, Shoji T, Suzuki K, Taniguchi M, Tsuchida K, Nakamoto H, Nishi H, Hashimoto S, Hasegawa T, Hanafusa N, Hamano T, Fujii N, Masakane I, Marubayashi S, Morita O, Yamagata K, Wakai K, Wada A, Watanabe Y, Tsubakihara Y: Overview of regular dialysis treatment in Japan (as of 31 December 2009). Ther Apher Dial 16: 11–53, 2012
29. UK Renal Registry. Available at: http://www.renalreg.com/. Accessed May 14, 2012
    30. Canadian Institute for Health Information: Canadian Organ Replacement Register. Available at: http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/tabbedcontent/types+of+care/specialized+services/organ+replacements/cihi021362. Accessed May 14, 2012
    31. Greene T, Daugirdas J, Depner T, Allon M, Beck G, Chumlea C, Delmez J, Gotch F, Kusek JW, Levin N, Owen W, Schulman G, Star R, Toto R, Eknoyan GHemodialysis Study Group: Association of achieved dialysis dose with mortality in the hemodialysis study: An example of “dose-targeting bias”. J Am Soc Nephrol 16: 3371–3380, 2005
    32. Port FK, Pisoni RL, Bommer J, Locatelli F, Jadoul M, Eknoyan G, Kurokawa K, Canaud BJ, Finley MP, Young EW: Improving outcomes for dialysis patients in the international Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 1: 246–255, 2006
    33. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB: Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 91: 444–455, 1996
    34. Johnston J, DiNardo J: Econometric Methods, 4th Ed., New York, McGraw-Hill, 1997, p xviii
      35. Newhouse JP, McClellan M: Econometrics in outcomes research: The use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health 19: 17–34, 1998
      36. Tan HJ, Norton EC, Ye Z, Hafez KS, Gore JL, Miller DC: Long-term survival following partial vs radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer. JAMA 307: 1629–1635, 2012
      37. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, Bradbury BD, Liu J, Winkelmayer WC: Comparative mortality risk of anemia management practices in incident hemodialysis patients. JAMA 303: 857–864, 2010
      38. Ramirez SP, Albert JM, Blayney MJ, Tentori F, Goodkin DA, Wolfe RA, Young EW, Bailie GR, Pisoni RL, Port FK: Rosiglitazone is associated with mortality in chronic hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 20: 1094–1101, 2009
      39. Pisoni RL, Bragg-Gresham JL, Fuller DS, Morgenstern H, Canaud B, Locatelli F, Li Y, Gillespie B, Wolfe RA, Port FK, Robinson BM: Facility-level interpatient hemoglobin variability in hemodialysis centers participating in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS): Associations with mortality, patient characteristics, and facility practices. Am J Kidney Dis 57: 266–275, 2011
      40. Lopes AA, Bragg-Gresham JL, Ramirez SP, Andreucci VE, Akiba T, Saito A, Jacobson SH, Robinson BM, Port FK, Mason NA, Young EW: Prescription of antihypertensive agents to haemodialysis patients: Time trends and associations with patient characteristics, country and survival in the DOPPS. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24: 2809–2816, 2009
      41. Jadoul M, Thumma J, Fuller DS, Tentori F, Li Y, Morgenstern H, Mendelssohn D, Tomo T, Ethier J, Port F, Robinson BM: Modifiable practices associated with sudden death among hemodialysis (HD) patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 765–774, 2012
      42. Tentori F, Zhang J, Li Y, Karaboyas A, Kerr P, Saran R, Bommer J, Port F, Akiba T, Pisoni R, Robinson B: Longer dialysis session length is associated with better intermediate outcomes and survival among patients on in-center three times per week hemodialysis: Results from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) [published online ahead of print March 19, 2012]. Nephrol Dial Transplant doi:10.1093/ndt/gfs021
      43. Robinson BM, Tong L, Zhang J, Wolfe RA, Goodkin DA, Greenwood RN, Kerr PG, Morgenstern H, Li Y, Pisoni RL, Saran R, Tentori F, Akizawa T, Fukuhara S, Port FK: Blood pressure levels and mortality risk among hemodialysis patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Kidney Int 82: 570–580, 2012
      44. Chen Y, Briesacher BA: Use of instrumental variable in prescription drug research with observational data: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 64: 687–700, 2011
      45. Ionescu-Ittu R, Abrahamowicz M, Pilote L: Treatment effect estimates varied depending on the definition of the provider prescribing preference-based instrumental variables. J Clin Epidemiol 65: 155–162, 2012
      46. Johnston SC, Henneman T, McCulloch CE, van der Laan M: Modeling treatment effects on binary outcomes with grouped-treatment variables and individual covariates. Am J Epidemiol 156: 753–760, 2002
      47. Hecking M, Karaboyas A, Saran R, Sen A, Hörl WH, Pisoni RL, Robinson BM, Sunder-Plassmann G, Port FK: Predialysis serum sodium level, dialysate sodium, and mortality in maintenance hemodialysis patients: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Am J Kidney Dis 59: 238–248, 2012
      48. Hecking M, Karaboyas A, Saran R, Sen A, Inaba M, Rayner H, Hörl WH, Pisoni RL, Robinson BM, Sunder-Plassmann G, Port FK: Dialysate sodium concentration and the association with interdialytic weight gain, hospitalization, and mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 92–100, 2012
      49. Bleyer AJ, Hawfield A: Cardiovascular disease: Modifiable risk factors for sudden death in dialysis patients. Nat Rev Nephrol 8: 323–324, 2012
      50. Saran R, Bragg-Gresham JL, Levin NW, Twardowski ZJ, Wizemann V, Saito A, Kimata N, Gillespie BW, Combe C, Bommer J, Akiba T, Mapes DL, Young EW, Port FK: Longer treatment time and slower ultrafiltration in hemodialysis: Associations with reduced mortality in the DOPPS. Kidney Int 69: 1222–1228, 2006
      51. : Clinical and demographic characteristics of the China Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study population [Abstract]. Presented at the 2011 Meeting of the Chinese Society of Nephrology, Nanjing, China, October 10–14, 2011
      52. : Dialysis treatment time, dialysis frequency, and delivered single pool Kt/V among hemodialysis patients in the China Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study [Abstract]. Presented at the 2011 Meeting of the Chinese Society of Nephrology, Nanjing, China, October 10–14, 2011
        53. : Mineral and bone disorder among participants in the China Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS): Serum biomarkers and therapeutic regimens [Abstract]. Presented at the 2011 Meeting of the Chinese Society of Nephrology, Nanjing, China, October 10–14, 2011
        54. Nissenson AR, Maddux FW, Velez RL, Mayne TJ, Parks J: Accountable care organizations and ESRD: The time has come. Am J Kidney Dis 59: 724–733, 2012
        55. UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: CG125: Peritoneal dialysis in the treatment of stage 5 chronic kidney disease: Clinical guidelines. Available at: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG125. Accessed September 7, 2012
        56. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD–MBD Work Group: KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease–mineral and bone disorder (CKD–MBD). Kidney Int 76[Suppl 113]: S1–S130
        57. Robinson BM, Port FK: Caring for dialysis patients: International insights from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Identifying best practices and outcomes in the DOPPS. Semin Dial 23: 4–6, 2010
        58. Robinson B, Port F: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS): Reviewing the first 12 years and looking ahead. NephSAP 7: 367–373, 2008
        Copyright © 2012 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.