Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25023919›Full record

SynthesisMedical care2014

Risk prediction models to predict emergency hospital admission in community-dwelling adults: a systematic review.

Emma Wallace, Ellen Stuart, Niall Vaughan, Kathleen Bennett, Tom Fahey, Susan M Smith

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 197 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Interventions to Promote Early Discharge and Avoid Inappropriate Hospital (Re)Admission: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emma Wallace*HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2 †School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick ‡Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, St James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Ellen Stuart
Niall Vaughan
Kathleen Bennett
Tom Fahey
Susan M Smith
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IESt. James's Hospital · IEUniversity of Limerick · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk prediction models have been developed to identify those at increased risk for emergency admissions, which could facilitate targeted interventions in primary care to prevent these events.

objectiveSystematic review of validated risk prediction models for predicting emergency hospital admissions in community-dwelling adults.

methodsA systematic literature review and narrative analysis was conducted. Inclusion criteria were as follows; POPULATION: community-dwelling adults (aged 18 years and above); Risk: risk prediction models, not contingent on an index hospital admission, with a derivation and ≥1 validation cohort; PRIMARY OUTCOME: emergency hospital admission (defined as unplanned overnight stay in hospital); STUDY

designretrospective or prospective cohort studies.

resultsOf 18,983 records reviewed, 27 unique risk prediction models met the inclusion criteria. Eleven were developed in the United States, 11 in the United Kingdom, 3 in Italy, 1 in Spain, and 1 in Canada. Nine models were derived using self-report data, and the remainder (n=18) used routine administrative or clinical record data. Total study sample sizes ranged from 96 to 4.7 million participants. Predictor variables most frequently included in models were: (1) named medical diagnoses (n=23); (2) age (n=23); (3) prior emergency admission (n=22); and (4) sex (n=18). Eleven models included nonmedical factors, such as functional status and social supports. Regarding predictive accuracy, models developed using administrative or clinical record data tended to perform better than those developed using self-report data (c statistics 0.63-0.83 vs. 0.61-0.74, respectively). Six models reported c statistics of >0.8, indicating good performance. All 6 included variables for prior health care utilization, multimorbidity or polypharmacy, and named medical diagnoses or prescribed medications. Three predicted admissions regarded as being ambulatory care sensitive.

conclusionsThis study suggests that risk models developed using administrative or clinical record data tend to perform better. In applying a risk prediction model to a new population, careful consideration needs to be given to the purpose of its use and local factors.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAge FactorsEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHealth ServicesHealth Services ResearchHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalPatient AdmissionResidence CharacteristicsRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID25023919
PMCPMC4219489
OpenAlexW2073380496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.