Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38727580›Full record

SynthesisAge and ageing2024

Predicting short- to medium-term care home admission risk in older adults: a systematic review of externally validated models.

Leonard Ho, Carys Pugh, Sohan Seth, Stella Arakelyan, Nazir I Lone, Marcus J Lyall, Atul Anand, Jacques D Fleuriot, Paola Galdi, Bruce Guthrie

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Leonard HoAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Carys PughAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Sohan SethAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Stella ArakelyanAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Nazir I LoneRoyal Infirmary of Edinburgh, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Marcus J LyallRoyal Infirmary of Edinburgh, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Atul AnandCentre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Jacques D FleuriotAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Paola GaldiSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Bruce GuthrieAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

Advanced Care Research Centre at the University of EdinburghLegal and General PLCNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Artificial Intelligence and Multimorbidity: Clustering in Individuals, Space and Clinical Context NIHR202639
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPredicting risk of care home admission could identify older adults for early intervention to support independent living but require external validation in a different dataset before clinical use. We systematically reviewed external validations of care home admission risk prediction models in older adults.

methodsWe searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library until 14 August 2023 for external validations of prediction models for care home admission risk in adults aged ≥65 years with up to 3 years of follow-up. We extracted and narratively synthesised data on study design, model characteristics, and model discrimination and calibration (accuracy of predictions). We assessed risk of bias and applicability using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool.

resultsFive studies reporting validations of nine unique models were included. Model applicability was fair but risk of bias was mostly high due to not reporting model calibration. Morbidities were used as predictors in four models, most commonly neurological or psychiatric diseases. Physical function was also included in four models. For 1-year prediction, three of the six models had acceptable discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)/c statistic 0.70-0.79) and the remaining three had poor discrimination (AUC < 0.70). No model accounted for competing mortality risk. The only study examining model calibration (but ignoring competing mortality) concluded that it was excellent.

conclusionsThe reporting of models was incomplete. Model discrimination was at best acceptable, and calibration was rarely examined (and ignored competing mortality risk when examined). There is a need to derive better models that account for competing mortality risk and report calibration as well as discrimination.

Indexed as

Homes for the AgedNursing HomesPatient AdmissionAgedAged, 80 and overGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime Factorsagedlong-term careolder peoplerisksystematic reviewvalidation study

Identifiers

PMID38727580
PMCPMC11084757

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.