ReviewBMJ open quality2023
Reducing hospital admissions in patients with malignant pleural effusion: a quality improvement study.
Review in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalignant pleural effusions (MPE) can cause severe dyspnoea leading to greater than 125 000 hospitalisations per year and cost greater than US$5 billion per year in the USA. Timely insertion of tunnelled pleural catheters (TPCs) is associated with fewer inpatient days and emergency department visits. We conducted a quality improvement study to reduce hospital admissions of patients with MPE.
methodsKey stakeholders were surveyed, including thoracic and breast oncology teams, general pulmonary and interventional pulmonology (IP) to help identify the underlying causes and solutions. Our preintervention group consisted of 51 patients who underwent TPC placement by our IP service. In our first intervention, we reviewed referrals for MPE with the scheduling team and triaged them based on urgency. In the second intervention, we added a follow-up phone call 1 week after the initial thoracentesis performed by IP to assess for the recurrence of symptoms.
resultsDemographic and clinical characteristics were summarised across the three groups. We evaluated the rate ratio (RR) of admissions in the intervention groups with the multivariable Poisson regression and adjusted for race, gender and cancer. Compared with the preintervention group, intervention I showed trends towards a 41% lower hospital admission rate (RR 0.59 (0.33-1.07), p=0.11). Compared with the preintervention group, intervention II showed trends towards a 40% lower hospital admission rate (RR 0.6 (0.36-0.99), p=0.07). The results did not reach statistical significance. Exploratory comparisons in readmission rates between interventions I and II showed no difference (RR 0.89 (0.43-1.79), p=0.75).
conclusionsBoth interventions showed trends toward fewer hospital readmissions although they were not statistically significant. Larger-size prospective studies would be needed to demonstrate the continued effectiveness of these interventions.
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.