ArticleAnales del sistema sanitario de Navarra2021
[Design and validation of a complex case evaluation index].
Article in Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Identification of palliative needs, complexities and other clinical variables in complex chronic patients in primary care in Andalusia: INCO-Pal study].Atencion primaria · 2026Article
- Factors associated with a positive response to the surprise question in complex chronic patients treated by advanced practice nurses in primary care.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Frailty, Complexity, and Priorities in the Use of Advanced Palliative Care Resources in Nursing Homes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim was to develop and validate the Complex Case Assessment Index (CCAI), a specific instrument to identify complex patients.
methodsInstrumental study in two phases: 1) Development of the scale: the variables extracted from the literature were firstly defined and operationalized, and then submitted for expert judgment. The CCAI included 14 variables divided into two dimensions: complexity of clinical management and complexity of community management. 2) Psychometric study: evaluation of the reliability and validity of the scale by equivalence between observers (Pearson's r), criterion validity with respect to the Clinical Risk Groups (CRG) classification system, and construct validity through known groups and study of hierarchical clusters were examined. The analyses were carried out with the SPSS version 17 statistical package.
resultsReliability by equivalence between observers was r?=?0.97 for the clinical subscale, r?=?0.74 for the community subscale, and r?=?0.89 for the total score. The CCAI identified 518 cases as complex; 458 of them (88.4%) were categorized by the CRG system in the categories of greatest clinical complexity (levels 6 to 9). The results support the construct validi-ty of the scale. The cluster analysis showed two different, although related, clusters.
conclusionThe CCAI is a fast and easy-to-use index, with good conceptual adequacy and evidence of reliability and validity for screening patients with complex needs.
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.