ArticleBMJ open2024
Outcomes and costs of home hospitalisation compared to traditional hospitalisation for infectious diseases in Israel: a cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of Acute Pyelonephritis Treated in Mayo Clinic's Hospital-at-Home Program.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Pioneering hospital-at-home in Taiwan: early clinical outcomes from the first cohort of nursing home older adults.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate and compare health outcomes and costs between home hospitalisation and traditional hospitalisation for three common diagnoses-cellulitis, urinary tract infection (UTI) and pneumonia.
designA retrospective cohort study.
settingPrimary care, nationwide.
participants1311 patients in home hospitalisation and 992 in traditional hospitalisation.
interventionsThe primary intervention is home hospitalisation, compared with traditional hospitalisation. The intervention was performed according to medical considerations by a specialised team, and this study was done retrospectively to evaluate it. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measures included healthcare costs, length of hospitalisation, referrals for further medical services and mortality.
resultsCosts of home hospitalisation were lower compared with traditional hospitalisation (6056 vs 9619 NIS for pneumonia, 6011 vs 9767 NIS for cellulitis, 6466 vs 8552 NIS for UTI and p value<0.05). The length of home hospitalisations was shorter for pneumonia and cellulitis (5.01 vs 6.05 days, p value 0.001 and 5.3 vs 6.1 days, p value<0.001, respectively). Likewise, for pneumonia and cellulitis, home-hospitalised patients had fewer ED referrals 30 days after discharge (13.7% vs 24%, p value<0.001 and 13.5% vs 19.8%, p value 0.002, respectively). No differences were found in recurrent hospitalisation and mortality 7 and 30 days after discharge.
conclusionsPrimary care physicians should consider home hospitalisation for these diagnoses as an alternative to traditional hospitalisation. Policymakers should encourage Primary care physicians to use home hospitalisation, as it has financial advantages and better health outcomes.
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.