Risk factors for hospital readmissions in pneumonia patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Factors that are associated with the short-term rehospitalization have been investigated previously in numerous studies. However, the majority of these studies have not produced any conclusive results because of their smaller sample sizes, differences in the definition of pneumonia, joint pooling of the in-hospital and post-discharge deaths and lower generalizability. AIM: To estimate the effect of various risk factors on the rate of hospital readmissions in patients with pneumonia. METHODS: Systematic search was conducted in PubMed Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases and search engines from inception until July 2021. We used the Newcastle Ottawa (NO) scale to assess the quality of published studies. A meta-analysis was carried out with random-effects model and reported pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: NO scale. Male gender (pooled OR = 1.22; 95%CI: 1.16-1.27), cancer (pooled OR = 1.94; 95%CI: 1.61-2.34), heart failure (pooled OR = 1.28; 95%CI: 1.20-1.37), chronic respiratory disease (pooled OR = 1.37; 95%CI: 1.19-1.58), chronic kidney disease (pooled OR = 1.38; 95%CI: 1.23-1.54) and diabetes mellitus (pooled OR = 1.18; 95%CI: 1.08-1.28) had statistically significant association with the hospital readmission rate among pneumonia patients. Sensitivity analysis showed that there was no significant variation in the magnitude or direction of outcome, indicating lack of influence of a single study on the overall pooled estimate. CONCLUSION: Male gender and specific chronic comorbid conditions were found to be significant risk factors for hospital readmission among pneumonia patients. These results may allow clinicians and policymakers to develop better intervention strategies for the patients.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".