MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590357760 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.765

Comparative Effectiveness of Transitional Care Services in Patients Discharged from the Hospital with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2017· review· en· W2590357760 on OpenAlexafffund
Harriette G.C. Van Spall, Tahseen Rahman, Oliver Mytton, Chinthanie Ramasundarahettige, Quazi Ibrahim, Conrad Kabali, Michiel Coppens, R. Brian Haynes, Stuart J. Connolly

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsImpactPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalRelative riskRandomized controlled trialCINAHLTransitional careHeart failureEmergency medicineMEDLINEInternal medicinePhysical therapyHealth carePsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To compare the effectiveness of transitional care services in decreasing all-cause death and all-cause readmissions following hospitalization for heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Clinical Trials Register for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2000-2015 that tested the efficacy of transitional care services in patients hospitalized for HF, provided ≥1 month of follow-up, and reported all-cause mortality or all-cause readmissions. Our network meta-analysis included 53 RCTs (12 356 patients). Among services that significantly decreased all-cause mortality compared with usual care, nurse home visits were most effective [ranking P-score 0.6794; relative risk (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.62-0.98], followed by disease management clinics (DMCs) (ranking P-score 0.6368; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.97). Among services that significantly decreased all-cause readmission, nurse home visits were most effective [ranking P-score 0.8365; incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.86], followed by nurse case management (NCM) (ranking P-score 0.6168; IRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.95), and DMCs (ranking P-score 0.5691; IRR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.97). There was no significant difference in the comparative effectiveness of services that improved each outcome. Nurse home visits had the greatest pooled cost-savings (3810 USD, 95% CI 3682-3937), followed by NCM (3435 USD, 95% CI 3224-3645), and DMCs (245 USD, 95% CI -70 to 559). Telephone, telemonitoring, pharmacist, and education interventions did not significantly improve clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Nurse home visits and DMCs decrease all-cause mortality after hospitalization for HF. Along with NCM, they also reduce all-cause readmissions, with no significant difference in comparative effectiveness. These services reduce healthcare system costs to varying degrees.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.041
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations377
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207