ArticleAtencion primaria2020
[Clinical validation of 2 morbidity groups in the primary care setting].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comorbidities and use of health services in people with diabetes mellitus according to risk levels by adjusted morbidity groups.BMC endocrine disorders · 2024Article
- Predicting healthcare expenditure based on Adjusted Morbidity Groups to implement a needs-based capitation financing system.Health economics review · 2024Article
- Adjusted morbidity groups and survival: a retrospective cohort study of primary care patients with chronic conditions.BMC primary care · 2023Observational
- Variability in Healthcare Expenditure According to the Stratification of Adjusted Morbidity Groups in the Canary Islands (Spain).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Observational
- Article
- Use of hospital care services by chronic patients according to their characteristics and risk levels by adjusted morbidity groups.PloS one · 2022Article
- Performance of quantitative measures of multimorbidity: a population-based retrospective analysis.BMC public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdjusted Morbidity Groups (GMAs) and the Clinical Risk Groups (CRGs) are population morbidity based stratification tools which classify patients into mutually exclusive categories. OBJETIVE: To compare the stratification provided by the GMAs, CRGs and that carried out by the evaluators according to the levels of complexity.
designRandom sample stratified by morbidity risk. LOCATION: Catalonia.
participantsForty paired general practitioners in the primary care, matched pairs.
interventionsEach pair of evaluators had to review 25 clinical records. MAIN OUTPUTS: The concordance by evaluators, and between the evaluators and the results obtained by the 2 morbidity tools were evaluated according to the kappa index, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predicted values.
resultsThe concordance between general practitioners pairs was around the kappa value 0.75 (mean value=0.67), between the GMA and the evaluators was similar (mean value=0.63), and higher than for the CRG (mean value=0.35). The general practitioners gave a score of 7.5 over 10 to both tools, although for the most complex strata, according to the professionals' assignment, the GMA obtained better scores than the CRGs. The professionals preferred the GMAs over the CRGs. These differences increased with the complexity level of the patients according to clinical criteria. Overall, less than 2% of serious classification errors were found by both groupers.
conclusionThe evaluators considered that both grouping systems classified the studied population satisfactorily, although the GMAs showed a better performance for more complex strata. In addition, the clinical raters preferred the GMAs in most cases.
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.