Review: comprehensive discharge planning plus post-discharge support reduces total readmissions in older patients with congestive heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phillips CO, Wright SM, Kern DE, et al . Comprehensive discharge planning with postdischarge support for older patients with congestive heart failure: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2004;291:1358–67.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In older patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), what is the effectiveness of comprehensive discharge planning plus post-discharge support on readmissions, all cause mortality, initial length of stay (LOS), quality of life (QOL), and overall medical costs? ### ![Graphic][5] Data sources: Medline (1966 to October 2003), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Bioethics (1985 to October 2003), PsycLit (1974 to October 2003), CINAHL (1982 to October 2003), Social Science Citation Index (1992 to October 2003), and Current Contents ; and bibliographies of relevant articles. ### ![Graphic][6] Study selection and assessment: published, English language, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that described interventions to modify hospital discharge for older patients with CHF (mean age ⩾55 y), delineated clearly defined components for inpatient care … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.aulast%253DPhillips%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%2BO.%26rft.volume%253D291%26rft.issue%253D11%26rft.spage%253D1358%26rft.epage%253D1367%26rft.atitle%253DComprehensive%2BDischarge%2BPlanning%2BWith%2BPostdischarge%2BSupport%2Bfor%2BOlder%2BPatients%2BWith%2BCongestive%2BHeart%2BFailure%253A%2BA%2BMeta-analysis%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.291.11.1358%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15026403%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.291.11.1358&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15026403&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F4%2F115.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000220174700030&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".