ArticleClinical epidemiology2024
Comparative Algorithms for Identifying and Counting Hospitalisation Episodes of Care for Coronary Heart Disease Using Administrative Data.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of Cancer Across Cardiovascular and Cardiometabolic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Pooled it
- Association between daily maximum temperature and immediate-to-delayed gout flare hospitalisations: a population-level time series study in metropolitan Perth, Australia.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Measures of disease burden using hospital administrative data are susceptible to over-inflation if the patient is transferred during their episode of care. We aimed to identify and compare measures of coronary heart disease (CHD) and myocardial infarction (MI) episodes using six algorithms that account for transfers. Patient and Methods: We used person-linked hospitalisations for CHD and MI for 2000-2016 in Western Australia based on the interval between discharge and subsequent admission (date, datetime algorithms), pathway (admission source, discharge destination) and any combination to generate machine learning models (random forest [RF], gradient boosting machine [GBM]). The date and datetime algorithms used deidentified patient identifiers to identify records belonging to the same individual. We calculated counts, age-standardised rates (ASR) and age-adjusted trends for CHD and MI for each algorithm. Results: Counts of CHD increased from 11,733 in 2000 to 13,274 in 2016, while MI increased from 2605 to 4480 using the date algorithm. Correspondingly ASR for CHD decreased from 2086.2 to 1463.1 while MI increased from 468.2 to 498.1 per 100,000 person-years. ASR for CHD and MI for datetime algorithm were consistently 1-2% higher than the date algorithm. Differences in ASR of CHD and MI counts increased over time with the admission source, RF and GBM algorithms relative to the date algorithm. Age-adjusted trends in CHD and MI episode rates using RF and GBM differed significantly from all other algorithms. Only 86.7% and 87.6% of MI episodes identified by the date algorithm were identified by the admission source and discharge destination algorithms, respectively. Conclusion: The date and datetime algorithms produced the most valid measures of CHD and MI episodes. Findings underscore the importance of identifying admission and discharge dates/times belonging to the same individual in enumerating these episodes.
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.