Literature DB >> 9928588

Laboratory values improve predictions of hospital mortality.

M Pine1, B Jones, Y B Lou.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the precision of risk adjustment in the measurement of mortality rates using: (i) data in hospitals' electronic discharge abstracts, including data elements that distinguish between comorbidities and complications; (ii) these data plus laboratory values; and (iii) these data plus laboratory values and other clinical data abstracted from medical records.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Twenty-two acute care hospitals in St Louis, Missouri, USA. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalized in 1995 with acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or pneumonia (n = 5966). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Each patient's probability of death calculated using: administrative data that designated all secondary diagnoses present on admission (administrative models); administrative data and laboratory values (laboratory models); and administrative data, laboratory values, and abstracted clinical information (clinical models). All data were abstracted from medical records.
RESULTS: Administrative models (average area under receiver operating characteristic curve=0.834) did not predict death as well as did clinical models (average area under receiver operating characteristic curve=0.875). Adding laboratory values to administrative data improved predictions of death (average area under receiver operating characteristic curve=0.860). Adding laboratory data to administrative data improved its average correlation of patient-level predicted values with those of the clinical model from r=0.86 to r=0.95 and improved the average correlation of hospital-level predicted values with those of the clinical model from r=0.94 for the administrative model to r=0.98 for the laboratory model.
CONCLUSIONS: In the conditions studied, predictions of inpatient mortality improved noticeably when laboratory values (sometimes available electronically) were combined with administrative data that included only those secondary diagnoses present on admission (i.e. comorbidities). Additional clinical data contribute little more to predictive power.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9928588     DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/10.6.491

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care        ISSN: 1353-4505            Impact factor:   2.038


  10 in total

1.  Decreased mortality resulting from a multicomponent intervention in a tertiary care medical intensive care unit.

Authors:  Giora Netzer; Xinggang Liu; Carl Shanholtz; Anthony Harris; Avelino Verceles; Theodore J Iwashyna
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 7.598

2.  Date stamping: will it withstand the test of time?

Authors:  Andrew B Bindman; Adam Bennett
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Exploration of ICD-9-CM coding of chronic disease within the Elixhauser Comorbidity Measure in patients with chronic heart failure.

Authors:  Jennifer Hornung Garvin; Andrew Redd; Dan Bolton; Pauline Graham; Dominic Roche; Peter Groeneveld; Molly Leecaster; Shuying Shen; Mark G Weiner
Journal:  Perspect Health Inf Manag       Date:  2013-10-01

4.  Transfusion practice in the intensive care unit: a 10-year analysis.

Authors:  Giora Netzer; Xinggang Liu; Anthony D Harris; Bennett B Edelman; John R Hess; Carl Shanholtz; David J Murphy; Michael L Terrin
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.157

5.  Using clinical variables and drug prescription data to control for confounding in outcome comparisons between hospitals.

Authors:  Paola Colais; Mirko Di Martino; Danilo Fusco; Marina Davoli; Paul Aylin; Carlo Alberto Perucci
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Development and validation of a novel computer-aided score to predict the risk of in-hospital mortality for acutely ill medical admissions in two acute hospitals using their first electronically recorded blood test results and vital signs: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Muhammad Faisal; Andrew J Scally; Natalie Jackson; Donald Richardson; Kevin Beatson; Robin Howes; Kevin Speed; Madhav Menon; Jeremey Daws; Judith Dyson; Claire Marsh; Mohammed A Mohammed
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Novel model for predicting inpatient mortality after emergency admission to hospital in Singapore: retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Feng Xie; Nan Liu; Stella Xinzi Wu; Yukai Ang; Lian Leng Low; Andrew Fu Wah Ho; Sean Shao Wei Lam; David Bruce Matchar; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Bibhas Chakraborty
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Machine learning-based prediction of in-hospital mortality using admission laboratory data: A retrospective, single-site study using electronic health record data.

Authors:  Tomohisa Seki; Yoshimasa Kawazoe; Kazuhiko Ohe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Index blood tests and national early warning scores within 24 hours of emergency admission can predict the risk of in-hospital mortality: a model development and validation study.

Authors:  Mohammed A Mohammed; Gavin Rudge; Duncan Watson; Gordon Wood; Gary B Smith; David R Prytherch; Alan Girling; Andrew Stevens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Which is more useful in predicting hospital mortality--dichotomised blood test results or actual test values? A retrospective study in two hospitals.

Authors:  Mohammed A Mohammed; Gavin Rudge; Gordon Wood; Gary Smith; Vishal Nangalia; David Prytherch; Roger Holder; Jim Briggs
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.