The association of hospital, clinic and provider volume with HIV/AIDS care and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine the association between hospital, clinic and provider patient volumes on HIV/AIDS patient outcomes including mortality, antiretroviral (ARV) use and proportion of patients on indicated opportunistic infection (OI) prophylaxis. We searched MEDLINE and nine other electronic databases from 1 January 1980 through 29 May 2009. Experimental and controlled observational studies of persons with HIV/AIDS were included. Studies examined the volume or concentration of patients with HIV/AIDS in hospitals, clinics or individual providers. Outcomes included mortality, ARV use and proportion of patients on indicated OI prophylaxis. We reviewed 22,692 titles and/or abstracts. Patient characteristics, study design, volume measures, medical outcomes and study confounders were abstracted. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Twenty-two studies were included in the final review. High volume hospital care was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.90 p = 0.004) and lower mortality 30 days from admission (pooled OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.81 p = 0.0004). Higher volume provider care was associated with significantly higher ARV use (pooled OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.70-7.18 p<0.00001). Differences in volume definitions and controlling for confounding variables did not appreciably alter the results. Higher volume hospitals, clinics and providers were associated with significantly decreased mortality for people living with HIV/AIDS and higher volume providers and clinics had higher ARV use. Heterogeneity of volume thresholds and absence of studies from resource-limited settings are major limitations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".