ArticleBMC geriatrics2020
External validation of the detection of indicators and vulnerabilities for emergency room trips (DIVERT) scale: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating methods for risk prediction of Covid-19 mortality in nursing home residents before and after vaccine availability: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- The role of geriatric syndromes in predicting unplanned hospitalizations: a population-based study using Minimum Data Set for Home Care.BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Predicting unplanned hospital visits in older home care recipients: a cross-country external validation study.BMC geriatrics · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Detection of Indicators and Vulnerabilities of Emergency Room Trips (DIVERT) scale was developed to classify and estimate the risk of emergency department (ED) use among home care clients. The objective of this study was to externally validate the DIVERT scale in a secondary population of home care clients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study, linking data from the Home Care Reporting System and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System. Data were collected on older long-stay home care clients who received a RAI Home Care (RAI-HC) assessment. Data were collected for home care clients in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Alberta, as well as in the cities of Winnipeg, Manitoba and Whitehorse, Yukon Territories between April 1, 2011 and September 30, 2014. The DIVERT scale was originally derived from the items of the RAI-HC through the use of recursive partitioning informed by a multinational clinical panel. This scale is currently implemented alongside the RAI-HC in provinces across Canada. The primary outcome of this study was ED visitation within 6 months of a RAI-HC assessment.
resultsThe cohort contained 1,001,133 home care clients. The vast majority of cases received services in Ontario (88%), followed by Alberta (8%), Winnipeg (4%), and Whitehorse (< 1%). Across the four cohorts, the DIVERT scale demonstrated similar discriminative ability to the original validation work for all outcomes during the six-month follow-up: ED visitation (AUC = 0.617-0.647), two or more ED visits (AUC = 0.628-0.634) and hospital admission (AUC = 0.617-0.664).
conclusionsThe findings of this study support the external validity of the DIVERT scale. More specifically, the predictive accuracy of the DIVERT scale from the original work was similar to the accuracy demonstrated within a new cohort, created from different geographical regions and time periods.
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.