Elegant regression results tables and plots in R: the finalfit package

This post was originally published here

The finafit package brings together the day-to-day functions we use to generate final results tables and plots when modelling. I spent many years repeatedly manually copying results from R analyses and built these functions to automate our standard healthcare data workflow. It is particularly useful when undertaking a large study involving multiple different regression analyses. When combined with RMarkdown, the reporting becomes entirely automated. Its design follows Hadley Wickham’s tidy tool manifesto.

Installation and Documentation

It lives on GitHub.

You can install finalfit from github with:

# install.packages("devtools")
devtools::install_github("ewenharrison/finalfit")

It is recommended that this package is used together with dplyr, which is a dependent.

Some of the functions require rstan and boot. These have been left as Suggests rather than Depends to avoid unnecessary installation. If needed, they can be installed in the normal way:

install.packages("rstan")
install.packages("boot")

To install off-line (or in a Safe Haven), download the zip file and use devtools::install_local().

Main Features

1. Summarise variables/factors by a categorical variable

summary_factorlist() is a wrapper used to aggregate any number of explanatory variables by a single variable of interest. This is often “Table 1” of a published study. When categorical, the variable of interest can have a maximum of five levels. It uses Hmisc::summary.formula().

library(finalfit)
library(dplyr)

# Load example dataset, modified version of survival::colon
data(colon_s)

# Table 1 - Patient demographics by variable of interest ----
explanatory = c("age", "age.factor", 
  "sex.factor", "obstruct.factor")
dependent = "perfor.factor" # Bowel perforation
colon_s %>%
  summary_factorlist(dependent, explanatory,
  p=TRUE, add_dependent_label=TRUE)

See other options relating to inclusion of missing data, mean vs. median for continuous variables, column vs. row proportions, include a total column etc.

summary_factorlist() is also commonly used to summarise any number of variables by an outcome variable (say dead yes/no).

# Table 2 - 5 yr mortality ----
explanatory = c("age.factor", 
  "sex.factor",
  "obstruct.factor")
dependent = 'mort_5yr'
colon_s %>%
  summary_factorlist(dependent, explanatory, 
  p=TRUE, add_dependent_label=TRUE)

Tables can be knitted to PDF, Word or html documents. We do this in RStudio from a .Rmd document. Example chunk:

```{r, echo = FALSE, results='asis'}
knitr::kable(example_table, row.names=FALSE, 
    align=c("l", "l", "r", "r", "r", "r"))
```

2. Summarise regression model results in final table format

The second main feature is the ability to create final tables for linear (lm()), logistic (glm()), hierarchical logistic (lme4::glmer()) and
Cox proportional hazards (survival::coxph()) regression models.

The finalfit() “all-in-one” function takes a single dependent variable with a vector of explanatory variable names (continuous or categorical variables) to produce a final table for publication including summary statistics, univariable and multivariable regression analyses. The first columns are those produced by summary_factorist(). The appropriate regression model is chosen on the basis of the dependent variable type and other arguments passed.

Logistic regression: glm()

Of the form: glm(depdendent ~ explanatory, family="binomial")

explanatory = c("age.factor", "sex.factor", 
  "obstruct.factor", "perfor.factor")
dependent = 'mort_5yr'
colon_s %>%
  finalfit(dependent, explanatory)

Logistic regression with reduced model: glm()

Where a multivariable model contains a subset of the variables included specified in the full univariable set, this can be specified.

explanatory = c("age.factor", "sex.factor", 
  "obstruct.factor", "perfor.factor")
explanatory_multi = c("age.factor", 
  "obstruct.factor")
dependent = 'mort_5yr'
colon_s %>%
  finalfit(dependent, explanatory, 
  explanatory_multi)

Mixed effects logistic regression: lme4::glmer()

Of the form: lme4::glmer(dependent ~ explanatory + (1 | random_effect), family="binomial")

Hierarchical/mixed effects/multilevel logistic regression models can be specified using the argument random_effect. At the moment it is just set up for random intercepts (i.e. (1 | random_effect), but in the future I’ll adjust this to accommodate random gradients if needed (i.e. (variable1 | variable2).

explanatory = c("age.factor", "sex.factor", 
  "obstruct.factor", "perfor.factor")
explanatory_multi = c("age.factor", "obstruct.factor")
random_effect = "hospital"
dependent = 'mort_5yr'
colon_s %>%
  finalfit(dependent, explanatory, 
  explanatory_multi, random_effect)

Cox proportional hazards: survival::coxph()

Of the form: survival::coxph(dependent ~ explanatory)

explanatory = c("age.factor", "sex.factor", 
"obstruct.factor", "perfor.factor")
dependent = "Surv(time, status)"
colon_s %>%
  finalfit(dependent, explanatory)

Add common model metrics to output

metrics=TRUE provides common model metrics. The output is a list of two dataframes. Note chunk specification for output below.

explanatory = c("age.factor", "sex.factor", 
  "obstruct.factor", "perfor.factor")
dependent = 'mort_5yr'
colon_s %>%
  finalfit(dependent, explanatory, 
  metrics=TRUE)

```{r, echo=FALSE, results="asis"}
knitr::kable(table7[[1]], row.names=FALSE, align=c("l", "l", "r", "r", "r"))
knitr::kable(table7[[2]], row.names=FALSE)
```

Rather than going all-in-one, any number of subset models can be manually added on to a summary_factorlist() table using finalfit_merge(). This is particularly useful when models take a long-time to run or are complicated.

Note the requirement for fit_id=TRUE in summary_factorlist(). fit2df extracts, condenses, and add metrics to supported models.

explanatory = c("age.factor", "sex.factor", 
  "obstruct.factor", "perfor.factor")
explanatory_multi = c("age.factor", "obstruct.factor")
random_effect = "hospital"
dependent = 'mort_5yr'

# Separate tables
colon_s %>%
  summary_factorlist(dependent, 
  explanatory, fit_id=TRUE) -> example.summary

colon_s %>%
  glmuni(dependent, explanatory) %>%
  fit2df(estimate_suffix=" (univariable)") -> example.univariable

colon_s %>%
  glmmulti(dependent, explanatory) %>%
  fit2df(estimate_suffix=" (multivariable)") -> example.multivariable

colon_s %>%
  glmmixed(dependent, explanatory, random_effect) %>%
  fit2df(estimate_suffix=" (multilevel)") -> example.multilevel

# Pipe together
example.summary %>%
  finalfit_merge(example.univariable) %>%
  finalfit_merge(example.multivariable) %>%
  finalfit_merge(example.multilevel) %>%
  select(-c(fit_id, index)) %>% # remove unnecessary columns
  dependent_label(colon_s, dependent, prefix="") # place dependent variable label

Bayesian logistic regression: with stan

Our own particular rstan models are supported and will be documented in the future. Broadly, if you are running (hierarchical) logistic regression models in [Stan](http://mc-stan.org/users/interfaces/rstan) with coefficients specified as a vector labelled beta, then fit2df() will work directly on the stanfit object in a similar manner to if it was a glm or glmerMod object.

3. Summarise regression model results in plot

Models can be summarized with odds ratio/hazard ratio plots using or_plot, hr_plot and surv_plot.

OR plot

# OR plot
explanatory = c("age.factor", "sex.factor", 
  "obstruct.factor", "perfor.factor")
dependent = 'mort_5yr'
colon_s %>%
  or_plot(dependent, explanatory)
# Previously fitted models (`glmmulti()` or 
# `glmmixed()`) can be provided directly to `glmfit`

HR plot

# HR plot
explanatory = c("age.factor", "sex.factor", 
  "obstruct.factor", "perfor.factor")
dependent = "Surv(time, status)"
colon_s %>%
  hr_plot(dependent, explanatory, dependent_label = "Survival")
# Previously fitted models (`coxphmulti`) can be provided directly using `coxfit`

Kaplan-Meier survival plots

KM plots can be produced using the library(survminer)

# KM plot
explanatory = c("perfor.factor")
dependent = "Surv(time, status)"
colon_s %>%
  surv_plot(dependent, explanatory, 
  xlab="Time (days)", pval=TRUE, legend="none")

Notes

Use Hmisc::label() to assign labels to variables for tables and plots.

label(colon_s$age.factor) = "Age (years)"

Export dataframe tables directly or to R Markdown knitr::kable().

Note wrapper summary_missing() is also useful. Wraps mice::md.pattern.

colon_s %>%
  summary_missing(dependent, explanatory)

Development will be on-going, but any input appreciated.

Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future

This post was originally published here

As Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist, put it, “prediction is very difficult, especially about the future”. Prognostic models are commonplace and seek to help patients and the surgical team estimate the risk of a specific event, for instance, the recurrence of disease or a complication of surgery. “Decision-support tools” aim to help patients make difficult choices, with the most useful providing personalized estimates to assist in balancing the trade-offs between risks and benefits. As we enter the world of precision medicine, these tools will become central to all our practice.

In the meantime, there are limitations. Overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. In some instances, the details of the actual model are considered commercially sensitive and are not published, making the assessment of the risk of bias and potential usefulness of the model difficult.

In this edition of HPB, Beal and colleagues aim to validate the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC) using data from 854 gallbladder cancer and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients from the US Extrahepatic Biliary Malignancy Consortium. The authors conclude that the “estimates of risk were variable in terms of accuracy and generally calculator performance was poor”. The SRC underpredicted the occurrence of all examined end-points (death, readmission, reoperation and surgical site infection) and discrimination and calibration were particularly poor for readmission and surgical site infection. This is not the first report of predictive failures of the SRC. Possible explanations cited previously include small sample size, homogeneity of patients, and too few institutions in the validation set. That does not seem to the case in the current study.

The SRC is a general-purpose risk calculator and while it may be applicable across many surgical domains, it should be used with caution in extrahepatic biliary cancer. It is not clear why the calculator does not provide measures of uncertainty around estimates. This would greatly help patients interpret its output and would go a long way to addressing some of the broader concerns around accuracy.

Radical but conservative liver surgery

This post was originally published here

Cutting-edge liver surgery is often associated with modern technology such as the robot. In this edition of HPB, Torzilli and colleagues provide a fascinating account of 12 years of “radical but conservative” open liver surgery.

This is extreme parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) in 169 patients with colorectal liver metastases. In all cases, tumour was touching or infiltrating portal pedicles or hepatic veins, a situation where most surgeons would advocate a major hepatectomy where possible. The PSH by its nature results in a 0 mm resection margin when the vessel is preserved, which was the aim in many of these procedures. Although this is off-putting, the cut-edge recurrence rate was no higher than average.

PSH in the form of “easy atypicals” is performed by all HPB surgeons. There are two main differences here. First is the aim to detach tumours from intrahepatic vascular structures. For instance, hepatic veins in contact with tumour were preserved and only resected if infiltrated. Even then, they were tangentially incised if possible and reconstructed with a bovine pericardial patch. Second is the careful attention paid to identifying and using communicating hepatic veins. This is well described but used extensively here to allow complete resection of segments while avoiding congestion in the draining region.

Short-term mortality and morbidity rates are comparable with other published series. A median survival of 36 months and 5-year overall survival of around 30% is reasonable given some of these patients may not be offered surgery in certain centres. The authors describe the parenchymal sparing approach “failing” in 14 (10%) patients: 7 (5%) has recurrence at the cut edge and 8 (6%) within segments which would have been removed using a standard approach. 44% of the 55 patients with liver-only recurrence underwent re-resection.

This is not small surgery. The average operating time is 8.5 h with the longest taking 18.5 h. The 66% thoracotomy rate is also notable in an era of minimally invasive surgery and certainly differs from my own practice. This study is challenging and I look forward to the debates that should arise from it.

Effect of day of the week on mortality after emergency general surgery

This post was originally published here

Out latest paper published in the BJS describes short- and long-term outcomes after emergency surgery in Scotland. We looked for a weekend effect and didn’t find one.

  • In around 50,000 emergency general surgery patients, we didn’t find an association between day of surgery or day of admission and death rates;
  • In around 100,000 emergency surgery patients including orthopaedic and gynaecology procedures, we didn’t find an association between day of surgery or day of admission and death rates;
  • In around 500,000 emergency and planned surgery patients, we didn’t find an association between day of surgery or day of admission and death rates.

We also found that emergency surgery performed at weekends, or in those admitted at weekends, was performed a little quicker compared with weekdays.

More details can be found here:

Effect of day of the week on short- and long-term mortality after emergency general surgery
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bjs.10507/full

bjs_dow-100

bjs_dow2-100

Press coverage

Broadcast: BBC GOOD MORNING SCOTLAND, HEART FM,

Print: DAILY TELEGRAPH, DAILY MIRROR, METRO, HERALD, HERALD (Leader), SCOTSMAN, THE NATIONAL, YORKSHIRE POST, GLASGOW EVENING TIMES

Online: BBC NEWS ONLINE, DAILY MAILEXPRESS.CO.UK, MIRROR.CO.UKHERALD SCOTLANDTHE COURIERWEBMD.BOOTS.COMNEWS-MEDICAL.NETNEW KERALA (India), BUSINESS STANDARDYAHOO NEWSABERDEEN EVENING EXPRESSBT.COMMEDICAL XPRESS.

Publishing mortality rates for individual surgeons

This post was originally published here

This is our new analysis of an old topic.In Scotland, individual surgeon outcomes were published as far back as 2006. It wasn’t pursued in Scotland, but has been mandated for surgeons in England since 2013.

This new analysis took the current mortality data and sought to answer a simple question: how useful is this information in detecting differences in outcome at the individual surgeon level?

Well the answer, in short, is not very useful.

We looked at mortality after planned bowel and gullet cancer surgery, hip replacement, and thyroid, obesity and aneurysm surgery. Death rates are relatively low after planned surgery which is testament to hard working NHS teams up and down the country. This together with the fact that individual surgeons perform a relatively small proportion of all these procedures means that death rates are not a good way to detect under performance.

At the mortality rates reported for thyroid (0.08%) and obesity (0.07%) surgery, it is unlikely a surgeon would perform a sufficient number of procedures in his/her entire career to stand a good chance of detecting a mortality rate 5 times the national average.

Surgeon death rates are problematic in more fundamental ways. It is the 21st century and much of surgical care is delivered by teams of surgeons, other doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, dieticians etc. In liver transplantation it is common for one surgeon to choose the donor/recipient pair, for a second surgeon to do the transplant, and for a third surgeon to look after the patient after the operation. Does it make sense to look at the results of individuals? Why not of the team?

It is also important to ensure that analyses adequately account for the increased risk faced by some patients undergoing surgery. If my granny has had a heart attack and has a bad chest, I don’t want her to be deprived of much needed surgery because a surgeon is worried that her high risk might impact on the public perception of their competence. As Harry Burns the former Chief Medical Officer of Scotland said, those with the highest mortality rates may be the heroes of the health service, taking on patients with difficult disease that no one else will face.

We are only now beginning to understand the results of surgery using measures that are more meaningful to patients. These sometimes get called patient-centred outcome measures. Take a planned hip replacement, the aim of the operation is to remove pain and increase mobility. If after 3 months a patient still has significant pain and can’t get out for the groceries, the operation has not been a success. Thankfully death after planned hip replacement is relatively rare and in any case, might have little to do with the quality of the surgery.

Transparency in the results of surgery is paramount and publishing death rates may be a step towards this, even if they may in fact be falsely reassuring. We must use these data as part of a much wider initiative to capture the success and failures of surgery. Only by doing this will we improve the results of surgery and ensure every patient receives the highest quality of care.

Read the full article for free here.

Press coverage

Radio: LBC, Radio Forth

Print:

  • New Scientist
  • Scotsman
  • Daily Mail
  • Express
  • the I

Online:

ONMEDICA, SHROPSHIRESTAR.COM, THE BOLTON NEWSEXPRESSANDSTAR.COMBELFAST TELEGRAPHAOL UKMEDICAL XPRESS, BT.COM, EXPRESS.CO.UK