Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31216301›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

A cluster-based approach for integrating clinical management of Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions.

Brent M Egan, Susan E Sutherland, Peter L Tilkemeier, Robert A Davis, Valinda Rutledge, Angelo Sinopoli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Managing Hypertension in Older Adults.Current hypertension reports · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Unsupervised machine learning and prognostic factors of survival in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    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

6 authors.

Brent M EganCare Coordination Institute, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1470-5875
Susan E SutherlandCare Coordination Institute, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, United States of America.
Peter L TilkemeierSchool of Medicine-Greenville, University of South Carolina, Greenville, South Carolina, United States of America.
Robert A DavisCare Coordination Institute, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, United States of America.
Valinda RutledgeCare Coordination Institute, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, United States of America.
Angelo SinopoliCare Coordination Institute, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately 28% of adults have ≥3 chronic conditions (CCs), accounting for two-thirds of U.S. healthcare costs, and often having suboptimal outcomes. Despite Institute of Medicine recommendations in 2001 to integrate guidelines for multiple CCs, progress is minimal. The vast number of unique combinations of CCs may limit progress. METHODS AND

findingsTo determine whether major CCs segregate differentially in limited groups, electronic health record and Medicare paid claims data were examined in one accountable care organization with 44,645 Medicare beneficiaries continuously enrolled throughout 2015. CCs predicting clinical outcomes were obtained from diagnostic codes. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering defined 13 groups having similar within group patterns of CCs and named for the most common CC. Two groups, congestive heart failure (CHF) and kidney disease (CKD), included 23% of beneficiaries with a very high CC burden (10.5 and 8.1 CCs/beneficiary, respectively). Five groups with 54% of beneficiaries had a high CC burden ranging from 7.1 to 5.9 (descending order: neurological, diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular, chronic pulmonary). Six groups with 23% of beneficiaries had an intermediate-low CC burden ranging from 4.7 to 0.4 (behavioral health, obesity, osteoarthritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, 'other'). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia were common across groups, whereas 80% of CHF segregated to the CHF group, 85% of CKD to CKD and CHF groups, 82% of cancer to Cancer, CHF, and CKD groups, and 85% of neurological disorders to Neuro, CHF, and CKD groups. Behavioral health diagnoses were common only in groups with a high CC burden. The number of CCs/beneficiary explained 36% of the variance (R2 = 0.36) in claims paid/beneficiary.

conclusionsIdentifying a limited number of groups with high burdens of CCs that disproportionately drive costs may help inform a practical number of integrated guidelines and resources required for comprehensive management. Cluster informed guideline integration may improve care quality and outcomes, while reducing costs.

Indexed as

Accountable Care OrganizationsAgedDiabetes MellitusFemaleHealth Care CostsHeart FailureHumansKidney DiseasesMaleMedicareMiddle AgedMultiple Chronic ConditionsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31216301
PMCPMC6584004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.