Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12390903›Full record

Trial reportArchives of disease in childhood2002

Randomised controlled trial comparing an acute paediatric hospital at home scheme with conventional hospital care.

S A Sartain, M J Maxwell, P J Todd, K H Jones, A Bagust, A Haycox, P Bundred

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Archives of disease in childhood, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Treatment preference and recruitment to pediatric RCTs: A systematic review.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Who should provide primary care for children?Archives of disease in childhood · 2004
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

S A SartainWirral Services for Child Health.
M J Maxwell
P J Todd
K H Jones
A Bagust
A Haycox
P Bundred

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo assess the clinical effectiveness of a paediatric hospital at home service compared to conventional hospital care.

methodsA total of 399 children suffering from breathing difficulty (n = 202), diarrhoea and vomiting (n = 125), or fever (n = 72) were randomised to Hospital at Home or in-patient paediatric care. Main outcome measures were: comparative clinical effectiveness as measured by readmission rate within three months (used as a proxy for parental coping with illness); and length of stay/care and comparative satisfaction of both patients and carers.

resultsClinical effectiveness of both services was not significantly different. Length of care was one day longer in the Hospital at Home group; however, most parents and children preferred home care.

conclusionsHospital at Home is a clinically acceptable form of care for these groups of acute paediatric illness. Readmission rates within three months failed to show any advantage in terms of parental coping. Parents and patients expressed a strong preference for hospital at home.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareAcute DiseaseAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolDiarrheaFemaleHealth Services ResearchHome Care Services, Hospital-BasedHospitals, PediatricHumansInfantLength of StayMalePatient ReadmissionRespiration Disorders

Identifiers

PMID12390903
PMCPMC1763073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.