Dataset Information

Hospitalisation rates and predictors in people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hospitalisation is often harmful for people with dementia and results in high societal costs, so avoidance of unnecessary admissions is a global priority. However, no intervention has yet reduced admissions of community-dwelling people with dementia. We therefore aimed to examine hospitalisation rates of people with dementia and whether these differ from people without dementia and to identify socio-demographic and clinical predictors of hospitalisation.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to 9 May 2019. We included observational studies which (1) examined community-dwelling people with dementia of any age or dementia subtype, (2) diagnosed dementia using validated diagnostic criteria, and (3) examined all-cause general (i.e. non-psychiatric) hospital admissions. Two authors screened abstracts for inclusion and independently extracted data and assessed included studies for risk of bias. Three authors graded evidence strength using Cochrane's GRADE approach, including assessing for evidence of publication bias using Begg's test. We used random effects meta-analysis to pool estimates for hospitalisation risk in people with and without dementia.

Results

We included 34 studies of 277,432 people with dementia: 17 from the USA, 15 from Europe, and 2 from Asia. The pooled relative risk of hospitalisation for people with dementia compared to those without was 1.42 (95% confidence interval 1.21, 1.66) in studies adjusted for age, sex, and physical comorbidity. Hospitalisation rates in people with dementia were between 0.37 and 1.26/person-year in high-quality studies. There was strong evidence that admission is associated with older age, and moderately strong evidence that multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and lower functional ability are associated with admission. There was strong evidence that dementia severity alone is not associated.

Conclusions

People with dementia are more frequently admitted to hospital than those without dementia, independent of physical comorbidities. Future interventions to reduce unnecessary hospitalisations should target potentially modifiable factors, such as polypharmacy and functional ability, in high-risk populations.

SUBMITTER: Shepherd H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6628507 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hospitalisation rates and predictors in people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shepherd Hilary H Livingston Gill G Chan Justin J Sommerlad Andrew A

BMC medicine 20190715 1

<h4>Background</h4>Hospitalisation is often harmful for people with dementia and results in high societal costs, so avoidance of unnecessary admissions is a global priority. However, no intervention has yet reduced admissions of community-dwelling people with dementia. We therefore aimed to examine hospitalisation rates of people with dementia and whether these differ from people without dementia and to identify socio-demographic and clinical predictors of hospitalisation.<h4>Methods</h4>We sear ...[more]

PMID: 31303173

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEstimates of the case hospitalization rate and case fatality rate when hospital care is available for monkeypox (MPX) infections have not been well defined. This rapid systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the case hospitalisation rate and case fatality rate where hospital care is available.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Lancet Preprints, and MedRxiv for studies published between Jan 1, 1950 and Aug 2, 2022. We included documents which contained both the number of cases and associated hospitalisations of MPX infections. From eligible studies we extracted the country, the year of the study, the study design type, the clade of MPX, the participant characteristics, transmission type, any treatments used, number of cases (including suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed diagnosis), number of hospitalizations, hospitalized patient outcomes, and case definition. Case hospitalization rate (CHR) was defined as the proportion of cases that were admitted to hospital care while case fatality rate (CFR) was defined as the proportion of cases that died. CHR and CFR were analysed in a fully Bayesian meta-analytic framework using random effects models, including sub-group analysis with heterogeneity assessed using I2.FindingsOf the 259 unique documents identified, 19 studies were eligible for inclusion. Included studies represented 7553 reported cases among which there were 555 hospitalizations. Of the 7540 cases for which outcomes were available, there were 15 recorded deaths. The median age of cases was 35 years (interquartile range 28-38, n = 2010) and primarily male (7339/7489, 98%) in studies where age or sex were available. Combined CHR was estimated to be 14.1% (95% credible interval, 7.5-25.0, I2 97.4%), with a high degree of heterogeneity. Further analysis by outbreak period indicates CHRs of 49.8% (28.2-74.0, I2 81.4%), 21.7% (7.2-52.1, I2 57.7%), and 5.8% (3.2-9.4, I2 92.4%) during the pre-2017, 2017-2021, and 2022 outbreaks, respectively, again with high levels of heterogeneity. CFR was estimated to be 0.03% (0.0-0.44, I2 99.9%), with evidence of large heterogeneity between the studies.InterpretationThere is limited data for MPX hospitalization rates in countries where MPX has been traditionally non-endemic until the current outbreak. Due to substantial heterogeneity, caution is needed when interpreting these findings. Health care organizations should be cognizant of the potential increase in healthcare utilization. Rapid identification of infection and use of appropriate therapies such as antivirals play a role reducing the CHR and associated CFR.FundingNone.

Project description:BackgroundDue to the high incidence and mortality of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury, a significant number of studies have explored the causes of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (AKI). However, the opinions on relevant predictive risk factors remain inconclusive. This study aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the predisposing factors for sepsis-associated AKI.MethodA systematic literature search was performed in the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science, databases, with an end-date of 25th May 2019. Valid data were retrieved in compliance with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria.ResultForty-seven observational studies were included for analysis, achieving a cumulative patient number of 55,911. The highest incidence of AKI was caused by septic shock. Thirty-one potential risk factors were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis showed that 20 factors were statistically significant. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), as well as the prevalence of the most frequently-seen predisposing factors for sepsis-associated AKI, were as follows: septic shock [2.88 (2.36-3.52), 60.47%], hypertension [1.43 (1.20-1.70), 38.39%], diabetes mellitus [1.59 (1.47-1.71), 27.57%], abdominal infection [1.44 (1.32-1.58), 30.87%], the administration of vasopressors [2.95 (1.67-5.22), 64.61%], the administration of vasoactive drugs [3.85 (1.89-7.87), 63.22%], mechanical ventilation [1.64 (1.24-2.16), 68.00%], positive results from blood culture [1.60 (1.35-1.89), 41.19%], and a history of smoking [1.60 (1.09-2.36), 43.09%]. Other risk factors included cardiovascular diseases, coronary artery diseases, liver diseases, unknown infections, the administration of diuretics and ACEI/ARB, the infection caused by gram-negative bacteria, and organ transplantation.ConclusionRisk factors of S-AKI arise from a wide range of sources, making it difficult to predict and prevent this condition. Comorbidities, and certain drugs, are the main risk factors for S-AKI. Our review can provide guidance on the application of interventions to reduce the risks associated with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury and can also be used to tailor patient-specific treatment plans and management strategies in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundCaring for people with dementia is perceived as one of the most stressful and difficult forms of caring. Family caregivers always experience high levels of psychological burden and physical strain, so effective and practical support is essential. Internet-based supportive interventions can provide convenient and efficient support and education to potentially reduce the physical and psychological burden associated with providing care.ObjectiveThis review aimed to (1) assess the efficacy of internet-based supportive interventions in ameliorating health outcomes for family caregivers of people with dementia, and (2) evaluate the potential effects of internet-based supportive intervention access by caregivers on their care recipients.MethodsAn electronic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases was conducted up to January 2020. Two reviewers (ML and YZ) worked independently to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria and independently extracted data. The quality of the included RCTs was evaluated using the approach recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs were applied to calculate the pooled effect sizes.ResultsIn total, 17 RCTs met the eligibility criteria and were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis showed that internet-based supportive interventions significantly ameliorated depressive symptoms (SMD=-0.21; 95% CI -0.31 to -0.10; P<.001), perceived stress (SMD=-0.40; 95% CI -0.55 to -0.24; P<.001), anxiety (SMD=-0.33; 95% CI -0.51 to -0.16; P<.001), and self-efficacy (SMD=0.19; 95% CI 0.05-0.33; P=.007) in dementia caregivers. No significant improvements were found in caregiver burden, coping competence, caregiver reactions to behavioral symptoms, or quality of life. Six studies assessed the unintended effects of internet-based supportive intervention access by caregivers on their care recipients. The results showed that internet-based supportive interventions had potential benefits on the quality of life and neuropsychiatric symptoms in care recipients.ConclusionsInternet-based supportive interventions are generally effective at ameliorating depressive symptoms, perceived stress, anxiety, and self-efficacy in dementia caregivers and have potential benefits on care recipients. Future studies are encouraged to adopt personalized internet-based supportive interventions to improve the health of family caregivers and their care recipients.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020162434; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=162434.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing studies have shown that poor oral health contributes to the progression of dementia. It is meaningful to find out the role of oral health interventions in maintaining people's cognition levels and delaying the progression of dementia. Thus, we conducted this review to summarize the present evidence on the effect of oral health interventions on the cognition change of people with dementia.MethodsLiterature search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences by two independent reviewers from inception to 6 March 2024. Clinical studies such as randomized controlled trials reporting on the effect of oral health interventions on the cognition of people with dementia were included in this review. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores were used to measure cognition level. The mean deviation (MD), generated by subtracting the baseline MMSE score from the MMSE score at follow-up was used to assess the change in cognition. Studies with oral hygiene practice as an oral health intervention were further conducted with a meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 6646 references were identified by the literature search, and 5 studies were eligible to be included in this review. Among the included studies, 4 studies reported the cognition change after having various oral hygiene practice as oral health intervention, while the other study adopted oral exercises as the intervention. Two studies presented positive MD values after intervention provided, indicating improved cognition level at follow-up (MD = 0.6, MD = 0.9, respectively). Another two studies reported less cognition deterioration with smaller absolute MD values in the intervention group, (intervention vs. control, -0.18 vs. -0.75, p < 0.05 and - 1.50 vs. -3.00, p < 0.05, respectively). The random-effect model was selected in the meta-analysis, and the weighted mean difference (WMD) was 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 1.71), favoring the intervention group.ConclusionWith limited evidence, oral hygiene care may play a positive role in maintaining the cognition level of people with dementia. However, further studies are needed to provide direct evidence on the effectiveness of oral health interventions on oral health conditions as well as cognition status and to disclose the rationale behind it.

Dataset Information

Hospitalisation rates and predictors in people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Hospitalisation rates and predictors in people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets