ArticleMedicine2016
Predicting emergency departments visit rates from septicemia in Taiwan using an age-period-cohort model, 1998 to 2012.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of reported incidence of chronic hepatitis B in Chaoyang District, Beijing during 2005-2022 with age-period-cohort model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Segmented regression analysis of emergency departments patient visits from Septicemia in Taiwan.Health policy and technology · 2018Article
- Using weighted regression model for estimating cohort effect in age-period contingency table data.Oncotarget · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the age-period-cohort (APC) effects on the rate of infection-related emergency department (ED) visits from septicemia for predicting the same in recent periods.In our study, we investigated the longitudinal trends in septicemia-related visit rates. Using an APC model to decompose the septicemia visit rates into the effects of age, time period, and cohort, and examine whether their effects varied by sex.The septicemia ED visit rate was classified as the International Classification of Disease Code 038 by primary and secondary diagnosis between 1998 and 2012.In both males and females, the visit rate of septicemia showed an increase from 2003 through 2012. An increase in septicemia visit rate after 2003 was observed in all age groups. An APC model indicated a reversal increasing period effect, which increased prominently from 2003 to 2012 in both males and females. The age effect showed an increasing trend. The cohort effect tended to show a slight oscillation from 1913 to 1988. With reference to the prediction of the logarithms of the age-specific 5-year visit rates, we observed that the younger cohorts exhibited a slightly increasing trend, as compared to the older cohorts.The period effect can explain the increase in septicemia visit rates, suggesting the role of screening for septicemia. Furthermore, it is well known that aging is a relevant risk variable for infectious diseases. The present study concludes that the aged population exhibited a strong increasing future trend for septicemia-related ED visit rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.