Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37663657›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2023

Hospital length of stay prediction tools for all hospital admissions and general medicine populations: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Swapna Gokhale, David Taylor, Jaskirath Gill, Yanan Hu, Nikolajs Zeps, Vincent Lequertier, Luis Prado, Helena Teede, Joanne Enticott

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Swapna GokhaleMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
David TaylorOffice of Research and Ethics, Eastern Health, Box Hill, VIC, Australia.
Jaskirath GillMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Yanan HuMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Nikolajs ZepsMonash Partners Academic Health Sciences Centre, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Vincent LequertierUniv. Lyon, INSA Lyon, Univ Lyon 2, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Luis PradoEpworth Healthcare, Academic and Medical Services, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Helena TeedeMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Joanne EnticottMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Unwarranted extended length of stay (LOS) increases the risk of hospital-acquired complications, morbidity, and all-cause mortality and needs to be recognized and addressed proactively. Objective: This systematic review aimed to identify validated prediction variables and methods used in tools that predict the risk of prolonged LOS in all hospital admissions and specifically General Medicine (GenMed) admissions. Method: LOS prediction tools published since 2010 were identified in five major research databases. The main outcomes were model performance metrics, prediction variables, and level of validation. Meta-analysis was completed for validated models. The risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST checklist. Results: Overall, 25 all admission studies and 14 GenMed studies were identified. Statistical and machine learning methods were used almost equally in both groups. Calibration metrics were reported infrequently, with only 2 of 39 studies performing external validation. Meta-analysis of all admissions validation studies revealed a 95% prediction interval for theta of 0.596 to 0.798 for the area under the curve. Important predictor categories were co-morbidity diagnoses and illness severity risk scores, demographics, and admission characteristics. Overall study quality was deemed low due to poor data processing and analysis reporting. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review assessing the quality of risk prediction models for hospital LOS in GenMed and all admissions groups. Notably, both machine learning and statistical modeling demonstrated good predictive performance, but models were infrequently externally validated and had poor overall study quality. Moving forward, a focus on quality methods by the adoption of existing guidelines and external validation is needed before clinical application. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42021272198.

Indexed as

length of staymachine learningmedicineregressionrisk assessment/risk prediction tools/factors/methods

Identifiers

PMID37663657
PMCPMC10469540

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.