Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34294037›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021

Hospital length of stay for COVID-19 patients: Data-driven methods for forward planning.

Bindu Vekaria, Christopher Overton, Arkadiusz Wiśniowski, Shazaad Ahmad, Andrea Aparicio-Castro, Jacob Curran-Sebastian, Jane Eddleston, Neil A Hanley, Thomas House, Jihye Kim and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The foundations of influencing policy and practice: How risk science discourse shaped government action during COVID-19.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors.

Bindu VekariaDepartment of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. bindu.vekaria@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6605-7956
Christopher OvertonDepartment of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. christopher.overton@manchester.ac.uk.
Arkadiusz WiśniowskiDepartment of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. a.wisniowski@manchester.ac.uk.
Shazaad AhmadDepartment of Virology, Manchester Medical Microbiology Partnership, Manchester Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WU, UK.
Andrea Aparicio-CastroDepartment of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Jacob Curran-SebastianDepartment of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Jane EddlestonClinical Data Science Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WU, UK.
Neil A HanleyDivision of Diabetes, Endocrinology & Gastroenterology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
Thomas HouseDepartment of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Jihye KimDepartment of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Wendy OlsenDepartment of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Maria PampakaDepartment of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Lorenzo PellisDepartment of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Diego Perez RuizDepartment of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
John SchofieldClinical Data Science Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WU, UK.
Nick ShryaneDepartment of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Mark J ElliotDepartment of Social Statistics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R502236/1Medical Research Council MR/V038613/1Royal Society 202562/Z/16/ZRoyal Society INF/R2/180067
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredicting hospital length of stay (LoS) for patients with COVID-19 infection is essential to ensure that adequate bed capacity can be provided without unnecessarily restricting care for patients with other conditions. Here, we demonstrate the utility of three complementary methods for predicting LoS using UK national- and hospital-level data.

methodOn a national scale, relevant patients were identified from the COVID-19 Hospitalisation in England Surveillance System (CHESS) reports. An Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) survival model and a truncation corrected method (TC), both with underlying Weibull distributions, were fitted to the data to estimate LoS from hospital admission date to an outcome (death or discharge) and from hospital admission date to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission date. In a second approach we fit a multi-state (MS) survival model to data directly from the Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT). We develop a planning tool that uses LoS estimates from these models to predict bed occupancy.

resultsAll methods produced similar overall estimates of LoS for overall hospital stay, given a patient is not admitted to ICU (8.4, 9.1 and 8.0 days for AFT, TC and MS, respectively). Estimates differ more significantly between the local and national level when considering ICU. National estimates for ICU LoS from AFT and TC were 12.4 and 13.4 days, whereas in local data the MS method produced estimates of 18.9 days.

conclusionsGiven the complexity and partiality of different data sources and the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is most appropriate to use multiple analysis methods on multiple datasets. The AFT method accounts for censored cases, but does not allow for simultaneous consideration of different outcomes. The TC method does not include censored cases, instead correcting for truncation in the data, but does consider these different outcomes. The MS method can model complex pathways to different outcomes whilst accounting for censoring, but cannot handle non-random case missingness. Overall, we conclude that data-driven modelling approaches of LoS using these methods is useful in epidemic planning and management, and should be considered for widespread adoption throughout healthcare systems internationally where similar data resources exist.

Indexed as

AgedCOVID-19Data AnalysisEnglandFemaleHospital Bed CapacityHospital PlanningHumansIntensive Care UnitsLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedCOVID-19EnglandLength of staySurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID34294037
PMCPMC8295642

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.