Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36699252›Full record

ReviewCritical care explorations2023

Predictive Modeling for Readmission to Intensive Care: A Systematic Review.

Matthew M Ruppert, Tyler J Loftus, Coulter Small, Han Li, Tezcan Ozrazgat-Baslanti, Jeremy Balch, Reed Holmes, Patrick J Tighe, Gilbert R Upchurch, Philip A Efron and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care explorations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Interpretable machine learning for identifying ICU readmission risk in subgroups with probabilistic rules.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
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

12 authors.

Matthew M RuppertUniversity of Florida Intelligent Critical Care Center (IC), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Tyler J LoftusUniversity of Florida Intelligent Critical Care Center (IC), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Coulter SmallUniversity of Florida Intelligent Critical Care Center (IC), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Han LiUniversity of Florida Intelligent Critical Care Center (IC), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Tezcan Ozrazgat-BaslantiUniversity of Florida Intelligent Critical Care Center (IC), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Jeremy BalchUniversity of Florida Intelligent Critical Care Center (IC), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Reed HolmesCollege of Medicine, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, FL.
Patrick J TigheUniversity of Florida Intelligent Critical Care Center (IC), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Gilbert R UpchurchDepartment of Surgery, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, FL.
Philip A EfronDepartment of Surgery, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, FL.
Parisa RashidiUniversity of Florida Intelligent Critical Care Center (IC), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Azra BihoracUniversity of Florida Intelligent Critical Care Center (IC), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Funding

Molecular Biology in Burns and TraumaT32GM008721 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Philip A Efron · 1999 to 2026
$5.0M
Perioperative Cognitive Anesthesia Network Extension for Socially Vulnerable Older AdultsK07AG073468 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI TIGHE, PATRICK J · 2021 to 2025
$774k
NIA NIH HHS K07 AG073468NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008721
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the methodologic rigor and predictive performance of models predicting ICU readmission; to understand the characteristics of ideal prediction models; and to elucidate relationships between appropriate triage decisions and patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: Primary literature that reported the development or validation of ICU readmission prediction models within from 2010 to 2021. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant study information was extracted independently by two authors using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist. Bias was evaluated using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. Data sources, modeling methodology, definition of outcomes, performance, and risk of bias were critically evaluated to elucidate relevant relationships. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-three articles describing models were included. Six studies had a high overall risk of bias due to improper inclusion criteria or omission of critical analysis details. Four other studies had an unclear overall risk of bias due to lack of detail describing the analysis. Overall, the most common (50% of studies) source of bias was the filtering of candidate predictors via univariate analysis. The poorest performing models used existing clinical risk or acuity scores such as Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, or Stability and Workload Index for Transfer as the sole predictor. The higher-performing ICU readmission prediction models used homogenous patient populations, specifically defined outcomes, and routinely collected predictors that were analyzed over time.

conclusionsModels predicting ICU readmission can achieve performance advantages by using longitudinal time series modeling, homogenous patient populations, and predictor variables tailored to those populations.

Indexed as

critical carecritical illnessforecastingintensive care unitsrisk

Identifiers

PMID36699252
PMCPMC9829260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.