ArticlePloS one2018
Inappropriate admissions of the cardiology and orthopedics departments of a tertiary hospital in Shanghai, China.
Article in PloS one, 2018. 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.
- Admission of Upper Extremity Injuries Presenting to the Emergency Department: An NEISS Study.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Inappropriate Hospital Admission According to Patient Intrinsic Risk Factors: an Epidemiological Approach.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Observational
- Prevalence and associated factors of inappropriate hospital admissions and days of children in a secondary hospital in Shanghai, China.PloS one · 2022Article
- Performance and Sociodemographic Determinants of Excess Outpatient Demand of Rural Residents in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAdmission rates have increased in China, despite the fact that accessibility to primary care is improving. Hospital care could be cost-inefficient, and little is currently known about the appropriateness of admissions to tertiary hospitals in China. This study aims to measure the extent of inappropriate admissions in the cardiology and orthopedics departments of a tertiary hospital in Shanghai, to explore the factors associated with inappropriateness for each department, and to identify the causes of inappropriate admissions.
methodsThe records of inpatients discharged on randomly sampled two days each week during March 2013 to February 2014 from the two departments were extracted. Two reviewers were recruited to assess the records according to the Chinese version of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (C-AEP). Demographic, socio-economic, and other admissions-related variables were collected. Logistic regression analysis was adopted to determine the associated factors of inappropriateness.
results35.0% (N = 120) of the 343 admissions and 38.7% (N = 179) of the 463 admissions of the cardiology and orthopedics departments were not justified by the C-AEP, respectively. Age (OR = 0.717), self-pay (OR = 3.752), admission via outpatient sector (OR = 5.332), and readmission (OR = 2.501) were identified as factors affecting the appropriateness of admissions in the cardiology department. Age (OR = 0.930), self-pay (OR = 2.597), admission during 12:00-17:59 (OR = 3.211), and admission via outpatient sector (OR = 7.060) were determined to be associated with appropriateness of admission in the orthopedics department. The main reason for inappropriateness was premature admission for both departments.
conclusionsThe magnitude of inappropriate admissions was considerable in the departments. To improve appropriateness, the results suggest that further interventions should be focused on both external and internal factors.
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.