Literature DB >> 29633124

Effectiveness of Intensive Primary Care.

Anne W Ekdahl1,2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29633124      PMCID: PMC6025691          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-018-4409-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


× No keyword cloud information.
Dear Editor, I read with great interest the recent review in JGIM by Dr. Edwards et al. on the “Effectiveness of Intensive Primary Care Interventions.”1 Our group published one of the articles included in Dr. Edwards’ review and we are concerned about several discrepancies between our findings and those reported in the review. First, they report that we had 252 patients followed for 2 years. While we experienced losses to follow-up and only included 252 patients in our 2-year analysis of several clinical assessed outcomes, we originally enrolled 382 subjects, and for our 2-year outcomes of death and hospitalization, we included all originally randomized 382 subjects in an intention-to-treat analysis. A second concern is that the article states in Table 2 that we had NR (no report) on the outcomes of hospital admissions and average hospital length of stay. However, we provide extractable data for both outcomes2; while we found was no difference between our intervention and control groups for hospital admission rates (2.1 vs. 2.5, p = 0.212), our intervention significantly reduced the average length of stay (11.1 vs. 15.2 days, p = 0.035). Finally, the review states that they searched through March of 2017 for pertinent articles. However, we published a 3-year follow-up data on our original study cohort in 20163 and in that report, we found that the reduction in average length of stay for hospitalization persisted in our intervention group, the difference in mortality was now significant (27.9%vs. 38.5%, p = 0.026), and there was a trend towards a decrease in rates of hospitalization (2.8 vs. 3.4, p = 0.06). We are sorry our follow-up study was not included in their systematic review. I am concerned, saddened actually, that Dr. Edwards’ review lists these “NR” results from the Age-FIT study. I worry that clinicians and policy makers will rely on their presentation of our data and that future readers may misinterpret or be misled about our findings by this article. Sincerely, Anne W. Ekdahl, MD, PhD
  2 in total

1.  Costs and Effects of an Ambulatory Geriatric Unit (the AGe-FIT Study): A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Anne W Ekdahl; Ann-Britt Wirehn; Jenny Alwin; Tiny Jaarsma; Mitra Unosson; Magnus Husberg; Jeanette Eckerblad; Anna Milberg; Barbro Krevers; Per Carlsson
Journal:  J Am Med Dir Assoc       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 4.669

2.  Long-Term Evaluation of the Ambulatory Geriatric Assessment: A Frailty Intervention Trial (AGe-FIT): Clinical Outcomes and Total Costs After 36 Months.

Authors:  Anne W Ekdahl; Jenny Alwin; Jeanette Eckerblad; Magnus Husberg; Tiny Jaarsma; Amelie Lindh Mazya; Anna Milberg; Barbro Krevers; Mitra Unosson; Rolf Wiklund; Per Carlsson
Journal:  J Am Med Dir Assoc       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 4.669

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.