ArticleAmerican heart journal2018
Incorporating patient-centered factors into heart failure readmission risk prediction: A mixed-methods study.
Article in American heart journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction models for hospital readmissions in patients with heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Metal ions and nanomaterials for targeted bone cancer immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Article
- A novel nomogram to predict all-cause readmission or death risk in Chinese elderly patients with heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCapturing and incorporating patient-centered factors into 30-day readmission risk prediction after hospitalized heart failure (HF) could improve the modest performance of current models.
methodsUsing a mixed-methods approach, we developed a patient-centered survey and evaluated the additional predictive utility of the survey compared to a traditional readmission risk model (the Krumholz et al. model). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic quantified the performance of both models. We measured the amount of model improvement with the addition of patient-centered factors to the Krumholz et al. model with the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). In an exploratory analysis, we used hierarchical clustering algorithms to identify groups with similar survey responses and tested for differences between clusters using standard descriptive statistics.
resultsFrom 3/24/2014 to 3/12/2015, 183 patients hospitalized with HF were enrolled from an urban, academic health system and followed for 30days after discharge. The Krumholz et al. plus patient-centered factors model had similar-to-slightly lower performance (AUC [95%CI]:0.62 [0.52, 0.71]; goodness-of-fit P=.10) than the Krumholz et al. model (AUC [95%CI]:0.66 [0.57, 0.76]; goodness-of-fit P=.19). The IDI (95%CI) was 0.003 (-0.014,0.020). We identified three patient clusters based on patient-centered survey responses. The clusters differed with respect to gender, self-rated health, employment status, and prior hospitalization frequency (all P<.05).
conclusionsThe addition of patient-centered factors did not improve 30-day readmission model performance. Rather than designing interventions based on predicted readmission risk, tailoring interventions to all patients, based on their characteristics, could inform the design of targeted, readmission reduction strategies.
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.