Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 364

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of Prognostic Criteria for Determining Hospice Eligibility in Patients With Advanced Lung, Heart, or Liver Disease

Fox, Ellen·1999·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Many individuals involved with care of the dying advocate expanding access to hospice care for persons with advanced lung, heart, or liver disease. However, to be eligible, these patients generally must have a prognosis for survival of less than 6 months. OBJECTIVE: To test the ability of currently available criteria to identify a population with a survival prognosis of 6 months or less among seriously ill hospitalized patients with 1 of 3 commonly fatal chronic diseases. DESIGN: Validation study using data from the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT) phase 1 (June 1989-June 1991) and phase 2 (January 1992-January 1994), with a 6-month follow-up. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Consecutive sample of 2607 seriously ill patients from 5 US medical centers who were hospitalized with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, or end-stage liver disease, and who survived to hospital discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive and operating characteristics of 5 general and 2 disease-specific clinical criteria for identifying patients with a survival prognosis of 6 months or less, and 3 sets of combination criteria (broad, intermediate, and narrow inclusion) aimed at providing low, medium, and high thresholds for hospice eligibility based on National Hospice Organization guidelines. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of the sample survived more than 6 months after hospital discharge; 44% expressed a preference for palliative care. Broad inclusion criteria identified 923 patients eligible for hospice care, of whom 70% survived longer than 6 months. Intermediate inclusion criteria identified 300 patients, of whom 65% survived longer than 6 months. Narrow inclusion criteria identified 19 patients, of whom 53% survived longer than 6 months. Sensitivities and specificities of the combination criteria were 41.7% and 66.7% (broad inclusion), 16.2% and 90.1 % (intermediate inclusion), and 1.4% and 99.5% (narrow inclusion), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that for seriously ill hospitalized patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, or end-stage liver disease, recommended clinical prediction criteria are not effective in identifying a population with a survival prognosis of 6 months or less.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.282.17.1638

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 364

Metadata

Authors
Fox, E.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1999-11-03
Volume
282
Issue
17
Pages
1638
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2045677993
Cited by
364
References
0
FWCI
17.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of Prognostic Criteria for Determining Hospice Eligibility in Patients With Advanced Lung, Heart, or Liver Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.282.17.1638
The paper
Fox, E. (1999). Evaluation of Prognostic Criteria for Determining Hospice Eligibility in Patients With Advanced Lung, Heart, or Liver Disease. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.17.1638

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.