SynthesisGerontology2026
Efficacy and Safety of Hospital-at-Home versus Traditional Hospital Care in Older Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Gerontology, 2026. 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.
- Descriptive Analysis of the First 12-Month Activity of Docadom, a Private Physician-Led Urgent In-Home Consultation Service.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
<p>Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Hospital-at-Home (HaH) model compared to traditional hospital care for older patients.
methodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, Scopus, and <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ClinicalTrials.gov" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">ClinicalTrials.gov</ext-link> for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to April 15, 2024. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included total cost, mortality, adverse events, and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL).
resultsEleven RCTs involving 3,301 patients were included. The HaH group demonstrated a significantly shorter LOS (SMD = -0.45; 95% CI: -0.62 to -0.28; p < 0.01) and lower total healthcare costs (SMD = -0.40; 95% CI: -0.52 to -0.28; p < 0.0001) than the traditional care group. HaH was also associated with a reduced risk of readmission, with subgroup analyses showing consistent benefits at 1, 3, and 9 months. Additionally, patients receiving HaH showed modest but significant improvements in IADL scores (SMD = -0.15; 95% CI: -0.26 to -0.04; p < 0.0001). However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of mortality (RR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.49-2.18; p = 0.93) or adverse event rates (RR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.43-2.36; p = 0.084).
conclusionFor a selected group of older patients, HaH appears to be a viable alternative to traditional hospitalization, offering advantages in reducing LOS, healthcare costs, and readmission rates, while potentially improving functional recovery without increasing risks to patient safety. Further research is warranted to confirm these findings and refine implementation strategies. </p>.
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.