Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35018571›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2022

Prediction Models for Future High-Need High-Cost Healthcare Use: a Systematic Review.

Ursula W de Ruijter, Z L Rana Kaplan, Wichor M Bramer, Frank Eijkenaar, Daan Nieboer, Agnes van der Heide, Hester F Lingsma, Willem A Bax

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Can patient-reported data improve predictions about who will be a high-need, high-cost patient in British Columbia?Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors.

Ursula W de RuijterSection of Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Z L Rana KaplanSection of Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. z.kaplan@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1620-1811
Wichor M BramerMedical Library, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Frank EijkenaarErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Daan NieboerSection of Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Agnes van der HeideSection of Care at the End of Life, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hester F LingsmaSection of Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Willem A BaxDepartment of Internal Medicine, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn an effort to improve both quality of care and cost-effectiveness, various care-management programmes have been developed for high-need high-cost (HNHC) patients. Early identification of patients at risk of becoming HNHC (i.e. case finding) is crucial to a programme's success. We aim to systematically identify prediction models predicting future HNHC healthcare use in adults, to describe their predictive performance and to assess their applicability.

methodsOvid MEDLINE® All, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception through January 31, 2021. Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment was performed through the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST).

resultsOf 5890 studies, 60 studies met inclusion criteria. Within these studies, 313 unique models were presented using a median development cohort size of 20,248 patients (IQR 5601-174,242). Predictors were derived from a combination of data sources, most often claims data (n = 37; 62%) and patient survey data (n = 29; 48%). Most studies (n = 36; 60%) estimated patients' risk to become part of some top percentage of the cost distribution (top-1-20%) within a mean time horizon of 16 months (range 12-60). Five studies (8%) predicted HNHC persistence over multiple years. Model validation was performed in 45 studies (76%). Model performance in terms of both calibration and discrimination was reported in 14 studies (23%). Overall risk of bias was rated as 'high' in 40 studies (67%), mostly due to a 'high' risk of bias in the subdomain 'Analysis' (n = 37; 62%). DISCUSSION: This is the first systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020164734) of non-proprietary prognostic models predicting HNHC healthcare use. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. Most identified models estimated a patient's risk to incur high healthcare expenditure during the subsequent year. However, case-finding strategies for HNHC care-management programmes are best informed by a model predicting HNHC persistence. Therefore, future studies should not only focus on validating and extending existing models, but also concentrate on clinical usefulness.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth Services Needs and DemandAdultBiasCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansModels, TheoreticalPrognosisRisk Assessmenthealth expendituresmanaged care programmesmeaningful usepatient care managementprognosis

Identifiers

PMID35018571
PMCPMC9130365

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.