MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117889492 · doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0715-6

A meta-analysis to derive literature-based benchmarks for readmission and hospital mortality after patient discharge from intensive care

2014· review· en· W2117889492 on OpenAlexafffund
F Shaun Hosein, Derek J. Roberts, Tanvir Chowdhury Turin, David Zygun, William A. Ghali, Henry T. Stelfox

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsCalgary General HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsMedicineCumulative incidenceEmergency medicineIncidence (geometry)Confidence intervalMeta-analysisCINAHLHospital dischargeRelative riskMEDLINEMortality rateIntensive care medicineCohortInternal medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We sought to derive literature-based summary estimates of readmission to the ICU and hospital mortality among patients discharged alive from the ICU. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 2013, as well as the reference lists in the publications of the included studies. We selected cohort studies of ICU discharge prognostic factors that in which readmission to the ICU or hospital mortality among patients discharged alive from the ICU was reported. Two reviewers independently abstracted the number of patients readmitted to the ICU and hospital deaths among patients discharged alive from the ICU. Fixed effects and random effects models were used to estimate the pooled cumulative incidence of ICU readmission and the pooled cumulative incidence of hospital mortality. RESULTS: The analysis included 58 studies (n = 2,073,170 patients). The majority of studies followed patients until hospital discharge (n = 46 studies) and reported readmission to the ICU (n = 46 studies) or hospital mortality (n = 49 studies). The cumulative incidence of ICU readmission was 4.0 readmissions (95% confidence interval (CI), 3.9 to 4.0) per 100 patient discharges using fixed effects pooling and 6.3 readmissions (95% CI, 5.6 to 6.9) per 100 patient discharges using random effects pooling. The cumulative incidence of hospital mortality was 3.3 deaths (95% CI, 3.3 to 3.3) per 100 patient discharges using fixed effects pooling and 6.8 deaths (95% CI, 6.1 to 7.6) per 100 patient discharges using random effects pooling. There was significant heterogeneity for the pooled estimates, which was partially explained by patient, institution and study methodological characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Using current literature estimates, for every 100 patients discharged alive from the ICU, between 4 and 6 patients on average will be readmitted to the ICU and between 3 and 7 patients on average will die prior to hospital discharge. These estimates can inform the selection of benchmarks for quality metrics of transitions of patient care between the ICU and the hospital ward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.205
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.205
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0330.068
Bibliometrics0.0260.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207