MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152423650 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.4.115

Review: comprehensive discharge planning plus post-discharge support reduces total readmissions in older patients with congestive heart failure

2004· letter· en· W2152423650 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Rideout

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureWeb of scienceInternal medicineHospital dischargeQuality of life (healthcare)Meta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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]</img>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]</img>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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207