Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27863514›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2016

Statistical methods and modelling techniques for analysing hospital readmission of discharged psychiatric patients: a systematic literature review.

Christoph Urach, Günther Zauner, Kristian Wahlbeck, Peija Haaramo, Niki Popper

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Christoph UrachDWH Simulation Services, Neustiftgasse 57-59, 1070, Vienna, Austria. christoph.urach@dwh.at.
Günther ZaunerDWH Simulation Services, Neustiftgasse 57-59, 1070, Vienna, Austria.
Kristian WahlbeckNational Institute for Health and Welfare, Mental Health Unit, P.O. Box 30, 00271, Helsinki, Finland.
Peija HaaramoNational Institute for Health and Welfare, Mental Health Unit, P.O. Box 30, 00271, Helsinki, Finland.
Niki PopperDWH Simulation Services, Neustiftgasse 57-59, 1070, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychiatric services have undergone profound changes over the last decades. CEPHOS-LINK is an EU-funded study project with the aim to compare readmission of patients discharged with psychiatric diagnoses using a registry-based observational record linkage study design and to analyse differences in the findings for five different countries. A range of different approaches is available for analysis of the available data. Although there are some studies that compare selected methods for evaluating questions on readmission, there are to our knowledge no published systematic literature reviews on commonly used methods and their comparison. This work shall therefore provide an overview of the methods in use, their evolution throughout history and new developments which can further improve the research quality in this area.

methodsBased on systematic literature reviews realized in the course of the CEPHOS-LINK study, this work is a systematic evaluation of mathematical (statistical and modelling) methods used in studies examining psychiatric readmission. The starting point were 502 papers, of which 407 were analysed in detail; Methods used were assigned to one of five categories with subcategories and analysed accordingly. Our particular interest next to survival analysis and regression models is modelling and simulation.

resultsAs population sizes and follow-up times in the included studies varied widely, a range of methods was applied. Studies with bigger sample sizes conducted survival and regression analysis more often than studies with fewer patients did. These latter relied more on classical statistical tests (e.g. t-tests and Student Newman Keuls). Statistical strategies were often insufficiently described, posing a major problem for the evaluation. Almost all cases failed to provide and explanation of the rationale behind using certain methods.

conclusionThere is a discernible trend from classical parametric/nonparametric tests in older studies towards regression and survival analyses in more recent ones. Modelling and simulation were under-represented despite their high usability, as has been identified in other health applications and comparable research areas.

Indexed as

HumansMaleMental DisordersPatient ReadmissionRegistriesEvaluation of research methodsMathematical methodsPsychiatric disordersReadmissionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27863514
PMCPMC5116202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.