ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2017
External validation of a claims-based and clinical approach for predicting post-pulmonary embolism outcomes among United States veterans.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2017. 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.
- Short-term outcomes of pulmonary embolism: A National Perspective.Clinical cardiology · 2018Article
- Using Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse to identify 30-day hospital readmissions.Health services & outcomes research methodology · 2018Article
- Claims-based or clinical models for predicting 90-day post-pulmonary embolism outcomes.Internal and emergency medicine · 2017Article
- Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Indices for Prediction of Mortality and Hospital Readmission in Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The In-hospital Mortality for PulmonAry embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) rule can accurately identify pulmonary embolism (PE) patients at low risk of early complications using claims data. We sought to externally validate the IMPACT and simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) tools for predicting all-cause mortality and readmission. We used Veteran Health Administration data (10/1/2010-9/30/2015) to identify adults with ≥1 inpatient diagnosis code for acute PE, ≥12 months continuous medical and pharmacy benefits prior to the index PE, ≥90 days of post-event follow-up (unless death occurred) and ≥1 claim for an anticoagulant during the index PE stay. Prognostic accuracies of IMPACT and sPESI for 30- and 90-day all-cause mortality and 90-day readmission were estimated. Of 6,746 PE patients, 7.5 and 12.6% died at 30 and 90 days. Within 90 days, 20.1% were readmitted for any reason. Hospitalization for recurrent VTE and major bleeding occurred in 5.6 and 1.7% of patients. IMPACT classified 15.2% as low risk, while 28.4% were low risk per sPESI. Both tools displayed sensitivity >90% and negative predictive values (NPVs) >97% for 30-day mortality, but low specificity (range 16.2-30.0) and positive predictive values (PPVs) (range 8.7-9.5); with similar results observed for 90-day mortality. IMPACT's sensitivity for all-cause readmission was numerically higher than sPESI (88.2 vs. 79.0%), but both had comparable NPVs (85.1 vs. 84.2%). Similar trends were observed for VTE or major bleeding readmissions. IMPACT classified patients for post-PE outcomes with similar accuracy as sPESI. IMPACT appears useful for identifying PE patients at low risk for early mortality or readmission in claims-based studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28185131What 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.