Dataset Information

Composite neonatal morbidity indicators using hospital discharge data: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Neonatal morbidity is associated with lifelong impairments, but the absence of a consensual definition and the need for large data sets limit research.

Objectives

To inform initiatives to define standard outcomes for research, we reviewed composite neonatal morbidity indicators derived from routine hospital discharge data.

Data sources

PubMed (updated on October 12, 2018). The search algorithm was based on three components: "morbidity," "neonatal," and "hospital discharge data."

Study selection and data extraction

Studies investigating neonatal morbidity using a composite indicator based on hospital discharge data were included. Indicators defined for specific conditions (eg congenital anomalies, maternal addictions) were excluded. The target population, objectives, component morbidities, diagnosis and procedure codes, validation methods, and prevalence of morbidity were extracted.

Synthesis

For each study, we assessed construct validity by describing the methods used to select the indicator components and evaluated whether the authors assessed internal and external validity. We also calculated confidence intervals for the prevalence of the morbidity composite.

Results

Seventeen studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Indicators targeted all (n = 4), low-/moderate-risk (n = 9), and very preterm (VPT, n = 4) infants. Components were similar for VPT infants, but domains and diagnosis codes within domains varied widely for all and low-/moderate-risk infants. Component selection was described for 8/17 indicators and some form of validation reported for 12/17. Neonatal morbidity prevalence ranged from 4.6% to 9.0% of all infants, 0.4% to 8.0% of low-/moderate-risk infants, and 17.8% to 61.0% of VPT infants.

Conclusions

Multiple neonatal morbidity indicators based on hospital discharge data have been used for research, but their heterogeneity limits comparisons between studies. Standard neonatal outcome measures are needed for benchmarking and synthesis of research results.

SUBMITTER: Lebreton E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7418783 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPain is one of the most common, feared, and unpleasant symptoms associated with surgery. However, there is a clear gap in patient care after surgical patients are discharged from hospital, resulting in poorly controlled postoperative pain. Inadequate pain management after discharge can have detrimental effects on quality of life and lead to the development of chronic postsurgical pain. The severity of postoperative pain before discharge is well described, but less emphasis has been placed on assessing pain at home after hospital discharge.ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to summarize the prevalence of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain within the first 1 to 14 days after hospital discharge.MethodsA detailed search of epidemiological studies investigating postoperative pain will be conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE from their inception until the date the searches are run. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients reporting moderate-to-severe postoperative pain at rest and with movement within the first 1 to 14 days after hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes will include a comparison of postoperative pain after discharge between patients who underwent ambulatory and inpatient surgery, and adverse outcomes attributable to poor pain control after hospital discharge (eg, readmission to hospital, emergency room or other unplanned medical visits, or a decrease in quality of life).ResultsThe protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020194346). The search strategies for MEDLINE and EMBASE have been completed. The final results are expected to be published in May 2021.ConclusionsThis systematic review is expected to synthesize evidence describing the prevalence of postoperative pain after hospital discharge. Available epidemiological evidence may help inform the magnitude of the problem of postoperative pain at home after hospital discharge.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020194346; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=194346.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/22437.

Project description:BackgroundEarable devices are novel, wearable Internet of Things devices that are user-friendly and have potential applications in mobile health care. The position of the ear is advantageous for assessing vital status and detecting diseases through reliable and comfortable sensing devices.ObjectiveOur study aimed to review the utility of health-related indicators derived from earable devices and propose an improved definition of disease prevention. We also proposed future directions for research on the health care applications of earable devices.MethodsA systematic review was conducted of the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Keywords were used to identify studies on earable devices published between 2015 and 2020. The earable devices were described in terms of target health outcomes, biomarkers, sensor types and positions, and their utility for disease prevention.ResultsA total of 51 articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed, and the frequency of 5 health-related characteristics of earable devices was described. The most frequent target health outcomes were diet-related outcomes (9/51, 18%), brain status (7/51, 14%), and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and central nervous system disease (5/51, 10% each). The most frequent biomarkers were electroencephalography (11/51, 22%), body movements (6/51, 12%), and body temperature (5/51, 10%). As for sensor types and sensor positions, electrical sensors (19/51, 37%) and the ear canal (26/51, 51%) were the most common, respectively. Moreover, the most frequent prevention stages were secondary prevention (35/51, 69%), primary prevention (12/51, 24%), and tertiary prevention (4/51, 8%). Combinations of ≥2 target health outcomes were the most frequent in secondary prevention (8/35, 23%) followed by brain status and CVD (5/35, 14% each) and by central nervous system disease and head injury (4/35, 11% each).ConclusionsEarable devices can provide biomarkers for various health outcomes. Brain status, healthy diet status, and CVDs were the most frequently targeted outcomes among the studies. Earable devices were mostly used for secondary prevention via monitoring of health or disease status. The potential utility of earable devices for primary and tertiary prevention needs to be investigated further. Earable devices connected to smartphones or tablets through cloud servers will guarantee user access to personal health information and facilitate comfortable wearing.

Project description:Hospital discharge (HD) records contain important information that is used in public health and health care sectors. It is becoming increasingly common to rely mostly or exclusively on HD data to assess and monitor severe maternal morbidity (SMM) overall and by sociodemographic characteristics, including race and ethnicity. Limited studies have validated race and ethnicity in HD or provided estimates on the impact of assessing health differences in maternity populations. This study aims to determine the differences in race and ethnicity reporting between HD and birth certificate (BC) data for maternity hospitals in Florida and to estimate the impact of race and ethnicity misclassification on state- and hospital-specific SMM rates. We conducted a population-based retrospective study of live births using linked BC and HD records from 2016 to 2019 (n = 783,753). BC data were used as the gold standard. Race and ethnicity were categorized as non-Hispanic (NH)-White, NH-Black, Hispanic, NH-Asian Pacific Islander (API), and NH-American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN). Overall, race and ethnicity misclassification and its impact on SMM at the state- and hospital levels were estimated. At the state level, NH-AIAN women were the most misclassified (sensitivity: 28.2%; positive predictive value (PPV): 25.2%) and were commonly classified as NH-API (30.3%) in HD records. NH-API women were the next most misclassified (sensitivity: 57.3%; PPV: 85.4%) and were commonly classified as NH-White (5.8%) or NH-other (5.5%). At the hospital level, wide variation in sensitivity and PPV with negative skewing was identified, particularly for NH-White, Hispanic, and NH-API women. Misclassification did not result in large differences in SMM rates at the state level for all race and ethnicity categories except for NH-AIAN women (% difference 78.7). However, at the hospital level, Hispanic women had wide variability of a percent difference in SMM rates and were more likely to have underestimated SMM rates. Reducing race and ethnicity misclassification on HD records is key in assessing and addressing SMM differences and better informing surveillance, research, and quality improvement efforts.