MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294922059 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.14143

Sex-Based Differences in Referral of Heart Failure Patients to Outpatient Clinics: A Scoping Review

2022· review· en· W4294922059 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Chan, Jasjit Rooprai, Jillian Rodger, Sarah Visintini, N. W. Rodger, Shona Philip, Lisa Mielniczuk, Louise Y. Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureReferralOutpatient clinicOutpatient visitsIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineFamily medicineMedical emergencyInternal medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that hospitalized patients newly diagnosed with HF be referred to an outpatient HF clinic (HFC) within 2 weeks of discharge. Our study aims were (i) to assess the current literary landscape on the impact of patient sex on HFC referral and outcomes and (ii) to provide a qualitative overview of possible considerations for the impact of sex on referral patterns and HF characteristics including aetiology, symptom severity, investigations undertaken and pharmacologic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and searched Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, Ageline databases and grey literature. Eligible articles included index HF hospitalizations or presentations to the Emergency Department (ED), a description of the HFC referral of patients not previously followed by an HF specialist and sex-specific analysis. Of the 11 372 potential studies, 8 met the inclusion criteria. These studies reported on a total of 11 484 participants, with sample sizes ranging between 168 and 3909 (25.6%-50.7% female). The included studies were divided into two groups: (i) those outlining the referral process to an HFC and (ii) studies which include patients newly enrolled in an HFC. Of the studies in Group 1, males (51%-82.4%) were more frequently referred to an HFC compared with females (29%-78.1%). Studies in Group 2 enrolled a higher proportion of males (62%-74% vs. 26%-38%). One study identified independent predictors of HFC referral which included male sex, younger age, and the presence of systolic dysfunction, the latter two more often found in males. Two studies, one from each group reported a higher mortality amongst males compared with females, whereas another study from Group 2 reported a higher hospitalization rate amongst females following HFC assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Males were more likely than females to be referred to HFCs after hospitalization and visits to the Emergency Department, however heterogeneity across studies precluded a robust assessment of sex-based differences in outcomes. This highlights the need for more comprehensive longitudinal data on HF patients discharged from the acute care setting to better understand the role of sex on patient outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESC Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207