Erin E Kennedy1,2, Kathryn H Bowles1,2, Subhash Aryal3,4. 1. NewCourtland Center for Transitions and Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Biostatistics, Evaluation, Collaboration, Consultation, and Analysis Lab, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Family and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article reports a systematic review of studies containing development and validation of models predicting postacute care destination after adult inpatient hospitalization, summarizes clinical populations and variables, evaluates model performance, assesses risk of bias and applicability, and makes recommendations to reduce bias in future models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group criteria. Online databases were searched in June 2020 to identify all published studies in this area. Data were extracted based on the CHARMS checklist, and studies were evaluated based on predictor variables, validation, performance in validation, risk of bias, and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. RESULTS: The final sample contained 28 articles with 35 models for evaluation. Models focused on surgical (22), medical (5), or both (8) populations. Eighteen models were internally validated, 10 were externally validated, and 7 models underwent both types. Model performance varied within and across populations. Most models used retrospective data, the median number of predictors was 8.5, and most models demonstrated risk of bias. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Prediction modeling studies for postacute care destinations are becoming more prolific in the literature, but model development and validation strategies are inconsistent, and performance is variable. Most models are developed using regression, but machine learning methods are increasing in frequency. Future studies should ensure the rigorous variable selection and follow TRIPOD guidelines. Only 14% of the models have been tested or implemented beyond original studies, so translation into practice requires further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: This article reports a systematic review of studies containing development and validation of models predicting postacute care destination after adult inpatient hospitalization, summarizes clinical populations and variables, evaluates model performance, assesses risk of bias and applicability, and makes recommendations to reduce bias in future models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group criteria. Online databases were searched in June 2020 to identify all published studies in this area. Data were extracted based on the CHARMS checklist, and studies were evaluated based on predictor variables, validation, performance in validation, risk of bias, and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. RESULTS: The final sample contained 28 articles with 35 models for evaluation. Models focused on surgical (22), medical (5), or both (8) populations. Eighteen models were internally validated, 10 were externally validated, and 7 models underwent both types. Model performance varied within and across populations. Most models used retrospective data, the median number of predictors was 8.5, and most models demonstrated risk of bias. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Prediction modeling studies for postacute care destinations are becoming more prolific in the literature, but model development and validation strategies are inconsistent, and performance is variable. Most models are developed using regression, but machine learning methods are increasing in frequency. Future studies should ensure the rigorous variable selection and follow TRIPOD guidelines. Only 14% of the models have been tested or implemented beyond original studies, so translation into practice requires further investigation.
Authors: Karel G M Moons; Andre Pascal Kengne; Mark Woodward; Patrick Royston; Yvonne Vergouwe; Douglas G Altman; Diederick E Grobbee Journal: Heart Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Kathryn H Bowles; Jesse Chittams; Eric Heil; Maxim Topaz; Kathy Rickard; Mrinal Bhasker; Matt Tanzer; Maryam Behta; Alexandra L Hanlon Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2015-01-25 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Prem N Ramkumar; Jaret M Karnuta; Sergio M Navarro; Heather S Haeberle; Richard Iorio; Michael A Mont; Brendan M Patterson; Viktor E Krebs Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Kathryn H Bowles; John H Holmes; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Matthew Liberatore; Robert Nydick; Mary D Naylor Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Mariam M AlHilli; Christine W Tran; Carrie L Langstraat; Janice R Martin; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Andrea Mariani; William A Cliby; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-06-29 Impact factor: 6.113