Risk factors for all-cause hospital readmission following exacerbation of COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Readmission rates following hospitalisation for COPD exacerbations are unacceptably high, and the contributing factors are poorly understood. Our objective was to summarise and evaluate the factors associated with 30- and 90-day all-cause readmission following hospitalisation for an exacerbation of COPD. METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases from inception to 5 November 2019. Data were extracted by two independent authors in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study quality was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We synthesised a narrative from eligible studies and conducted a meta-analysis where this was possible using a random-effects model. RESULTS: In total, 3533 abstracts were screened and 208 full-text manuscripts were reviewed. A total of 32 papers met the inclusion criteria, and 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The readmission rate ranged from 8.8-26.0% at 30 days and from 17.5-39.0% at 90 days. Our narrative synthesis showed that comorbidities, previous exacerbations and hospitalisations, and increased length of initial hospital stay were the major risk factors for readmission at 30 and 90 days. Pooled adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) revealed that heart failure (1.29 (1.22-1.37)), renal failure (1.26 (1.19-1.33)), depression (1.19 (1.05-1.34)) and alcohol use (1.11 (1.07-1.16)) were all associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause readmission, whereas being female was a protective factor (0.91 (0.88-0.94)). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities, previous exacerbations and hospitalisation, and increased length of stay were significant risk factors for 30- and 90-day all-cause readmission after an index hospitalisation with an exacerbation of COPD.
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 | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".