Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25694461›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2015

A tool for prediction of risk of rehospitalisation and mortality in the hospitalised elderly: secondary analysis of clinical trial data.

Anna Alassaad, Håkan Melhus, Margareta Hammarlund-Udenaes, Maria Bertilsson, Ulrika Gillespie, Johan Sundström

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 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. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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.

Anna AlassaadDepartment of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Håkan MelhusDepartment of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Margareta Hammarlund-UdenaesDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Maria BertilssonUppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ulrika GillespieUppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Johan SundströmDepartment of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo construct and internally validate a risk score, the '80+ score', for revisits to hospital and mortality for older patients, incorporating aspects of pharmacotherapy. Our secondary aim was to compare the discriminatory ability of the score with that of three validated tools for measuring inappropriate prescribing: Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP), Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) and Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI).

settingTwo acute internal medicine wards at Uppsala University hospital. Patient data were used from a randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of a comprehensive clinical pharmacist intervention.

participantsData from 368 patients, aged 80 years and older, admitted to one of the study wards. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Time to rehospitalisation or death during the year after discharge from hospital. Candidate variables were selected among a large number of clinical and drug-specific variables. After a selection process, a score for risk estimation was constructed. The 80+ score was internally validated, and the discriminatory ability of the score and of STOPP, START and MAI was assessed using C-statistics.

resultsSeven variables were selected. Impaired renal function, pulmonary disease, malignant disease, living in a nursing home, being prescribed an opioid or being prescribed a drug for peptic ulcer or gastroesophageal reflux disease were associated with an increased risk, while being prescribed an antidepressant drug (tricyclic antidepressants not included) was linked to a lower risk of the outcome. These variables made up the components of the 80+ score. The C-statistics were 0.71 (80+), 0.57 (STOPP), 0.54 (START) and 0.63 (MAI).

conclusionsWe developed and internally validated a score for prediction of risk of rehospitalisation and mortality in hospitalised older people. The score discriminated risk better than available tools for inappropriate prescribing. Pending external validation, this score can aid in clinical identification of high-risk patients and targeting of interventions.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsMortalityPatient ReadmissionPharmaceutical PreparationsAcute DiseaseAged, 80 and overAnalgesics, OpioidAntidepressive AgentsFemaleGastrointestinal AgentsGeriatricsHealth Services for the AgedHospitalizationHospitalsHumansAnalgesics, OpioidAntidepressive AgentsGastrointestinal AgentsPharmaceutical PreparationsGERIATRIC MEDICINEINTERNAL MEDICINEOrganisation of health services < HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTPrediction modelRisk-estimationTHERAPEUTICS (pharmacotherapy)

Identifiers

PMID25694461
PMCPMC4336459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.