Discontinuity of Cardiac Follow‐Up in Young People With Congenital Heart Disease Transitioning to Adulthood: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The majority of people born with congenital heart disease require lifelong cardiac follow‐up. However, discontinuity of care is a recognized problem and appears to increase around the transition to adulthood. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to estimate the proportion of adolescents and emerging adults with congenital heart disease discontinuing cardiac follow‐up. In pooled data, we investigated regional differences, disparities by disease complexity, and the impact of transition programs on the discontinuity of care. Methods and Results Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, and Web of Science. We identified 17 studies, which enrolled 6847 patients. A random effects meta‐analysis of single proportions was performed according to the DerSimonian‐Laird method. Moderator effects were computed to explore sources for heterogeneity. Discontinuity proportions ranged from 3.6% to 62.7%, with a pooled estimated proportion of 26.1% (95% CI, 19.2%–34.6%). A trend toward more discontinuity was observed in simple heart defects (33.7%; 95% CI, 15.6%–58.3%), compared with moderate (25.7%; 95% CI, 15.2%–40.1%) or complex congenital heart disease (22.3%; 95% CI, 16.5%–29.4%) ( P =0.2372). Studies from the United States (34.0%; 95% CI, 24.3%–45.4%), Canada (25.7%; 95% CI, 17.0%–36.7%), and Europe (6.5%; 95% CI, 5.3%–7.9%) differed significantly ( P =0.0004). Transition programs were shown to have the potential to reduce discontinuity of care (12.7%; 95% CI, 2.8%–42.3%) compared with usual care (36.2%; 95% CI, 22.8%–52.2%) ( P =0.1119). Conclusions This meta‐analysis showed that there is a high proportion of discontinuity of care in young people with congenital heart disease. The highest discontinuity proportions were observed in studies from the United States and in patients with simple heart defects. It is suggested that transition programs have a protective effect. Registration URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero . Unique identifier: CRD42020182413.
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 | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".