Evidence mapPaperPMID 32408892Full record

ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2020

Readmission rates following heart failure: a scoping review of sex and gender based considerations.

Amy Hoang-Kim, Camilla Parpia, Cassandra Freitas, Peter C Austin, Heather J Ross, Harindra C Wijeysundera, Karen Tu, Susanna Mak, Michael E Farkouh, Louise Y Sun and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Amy Hoang-KimWomen's College Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Camilla ParpiaWomen's College Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Cassandra FreitasPeter Munk Cardiac Centre of University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Peter C AustinICES, Toronto, Canada.
Heather J RossPeter Munk Cardiac Centre of University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Harindra C WijeysunderaICES, Toronto, Canada.
Karen TuFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Susanna MakFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Michael E FarkouhPeter Munk Cardiac Centre of University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Louise Y SunICES, Toronto, Canada.
Michael J SchullICES, Toronto, Canada.
Robin MasonWomen's College Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Douglas S LeePeter Munk Cardiac Centre of University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. douglas.lee@ices.on.ca.
Paula A RochonWomen's College Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAWomen's College Hospital · CAInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CAHealth Sciences Centre · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

CIHR FDN 148446
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough hospital readmission for heart failure (HF) is an issue for both men and women, little is known about differences in readmission rates by sex. Consequently, strategies to optimize readmission reduction programs and care strategies for women and men remain unclear. Our study aims were: (1) to identify studies examining readmission rates according to sex, and (2) to provide a qualitative overview of possible considerations for the impact of sex or gender.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework to include full text articles published between 2002 and 2017 drawn from multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE), grey literature (i.e. National Technical information, Duck Duck Go), and expert consultation. Eligible articles included an index heart failure episode, readmission rates, and sex/gender-based analysis.

resultsThe search generated 5887 articles, of which 746 underwent full abstract text consideration for eligibility. Of 164 eligible articles, 34 studies addressed the primary outcome, 103 studies considered sex differences as a secondary outcome and 25 studies stratified data for sex. Good inter-rater agreement was reached: 83% title/abstract; 88% full text; kappa: 0.69 (95%CI: 0.53-0.85). Twelve of 34 studies reported higher heart failure readmission rates for men and six studies reported higher heart failure readmission rates for women. Using non composite endpoints, five studies reported higher HF readmission rates for men compared to three studies reporting higher HF readmission rates for women. Overall, there was heterogeneity between studies when examined by sex, but one observation emerged that was related to the timing of readmissions. Readmission rates for men were higher when follow-up duration was longer than 1 year. Women were more likely to experience higher readmission rates than men when time to event was less than 1 year.

conclusionsFuture studies should consider different time horizons in their designs and avoid the use of composite measures, such as readmission rates combined with mortality, which are highly skewed by sex. Co-interventions and targeted post-discharge approaches with attention to sex would be of benefit to the HF patient population.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHeart FailureHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ReadmissionPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSex CharacteristicsSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID32408892
PMCPMC7222562
OpenAlexW3027987423

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.