LOS, d | Cost, Adjusted 2010 US $ | Probability of 30-d Readmission | |
---|---|---|---|

Estimated difference from propensity score matching | 0.11 (−0.02 to 0.26)^{a} | 506 (325 to 688)^{a}^{,}^{b} | .00 (−0.02 to 0.02)^{a} |

Multivariable regression coefficients | 1.02 (0.91 to 1.15)^{a} | 1.51 (1.47 to 1.56)^{a}^{,}^{b} | .74 (0.50 to 1.09)^{a} |

Estimated difference from multivariable regression models | 0.03 | 602^{b} | −.01 |

From propensity score matching, one assumes an increase of 0.11 d in LOS for NICU. Instead, researchers used a model to predict a 0.03-d greater LOS in the NICU. In cost, one assumes an increase of $506 on the basis of propensity scores, whereas in the model, we instead expect $602. The difference in probability of revisit is almost identical between the 2 methods. With the possible exception of cost, there does not seem to be a practical difference between findings from the 2 different statistical methods, and there seem to be no statistically significant differences.

↵a Values in parentheses in data cells are 95% confidence intervals of point estimates.

↵b

*P*< .01.