Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29514187›Full record

ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2019

Development and Validation of the Nursing Home Minimum Data Set 3.0 Mortality Risk Score (MRS3).

Kali S Thomas, Jessica A Ogarek, Joan M Teno, Pedro L Gozalo, Vincent Mor

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Prognostication in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Kali S ThomasCenter of Innovation in Long-Term Services and Supports, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island.
Jessica A OgarekCenter for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Joan M TenoDivision of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Oregon Health Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Pedro L GozaloCenter of Innovation in Long-Term Services and Supports, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island.
Vincent MorCenter of Innovation in Long-Term Services and Supports, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island.

Funding

VARIATIONS IN LIFE'S FINAL CHAPTERP01AG027296 · NIA · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI AMAL N. TRIVEDI · 2007 to 2026
$38.9M
Evaluating Cash Benefit Programs for Veterans' Long Term CareIK2HX001775 · VA · PROVIDENCE VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI THOMAS, KALI ST. MARIE · 2020 to 2021
–
HSRD VA IK2 HX001775NIA NIH HHS P01 AG027296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: To develop a score to predict mortality using the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS 3.0) that can be readily calculated from items collected during nursing home (NH) residents' admission assessments. Participants: We developed a training cohort of Medicare beneficiaries newly admitted to United States NHs during 2012 (N = 1,426,815) and a testing cohort from 2013 (N = 1,160,964). Methods: Data came from the MDS 3.0 assessments linked to the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File. Using the training dataset, we developed a composite MDS 3.0 Mortality Risk Score (MRS3) consisting of 17 clinical items and patients' age groups based on their relation to 30-day mortality. We assessed the calibration and discrimination of the MRS3 in predicting 30- and 60-day mortality and compared its performance to the Charlson Comorbidity Index and the clinician's assessment of 6-month prognosis measured at admission. Results: The 30- and 60-day mortality rates for the testing population were 2.8% and 5.6%, respectively. Results from logistic regression models suggest that the MRS3 performed well in predicting death within 30 and 60 days (C-Statistics of 0.744 [95% confidence limit (CL) = 0.741, 0.747] and 0.709 [95% CL = 0.706, 0.711], respectively). The MRS3 was a superior predictor of mortality compared to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (C-statistics of 0.611 [95% CL = 0.607, 0.615] and 0.608 [95% CL = 0.605, 0.610]) and the clinicians' assessments of patients' 6-month prognoses (C-statistics of 0.543 [95% CL = 0.542, 0.545] and 0.528 [95% CL = 0.527, 0.529]). Conclusions: The MRS3 is a good predictor of mortality and can be useful in guiding decision-making, informing plans of care, and adjusting for patients' risk of mortality.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCause of DeathFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMedicareNursing HomesPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSurvival RateTime FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29514187
PMCPMC6599280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.