Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Utility of models to predict 28-day or 30-day unplanned hospital readmissions: an updated systematic review

Open access
Zhou, Huaqiong, Della, Phillip R, Roberts, Pamela, Goh, Louise, Dhaliwal, Satvinder S·2016·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: To update previous systematic review of predictive models for 28-day or 30-day unplanned hospital readmissions. Design: Systematic review. Setting/data source: CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE from 2011 to 2015. Participants: All studies of 28-day and 30-day readmission predictive model. Outcome measures: Characteristics of the included studies, performance of the identified predictive models and key predictive variables included in the models. Results: Of 7310 records, a total of 60 studies with 73 unique predictive models met the inclusion criteria. The utilisation outcome of the models included all-cause readmissions, cardiovascular disease including pneumonia, medical conditions, surgical conditions and mental health condition-related readmissions. Overall, a wide-range C-statistic was reported in 56/60 studies (0.21–0.88). 11 of 13 predictive models for medical condition-related readmissions were found to have consistent moderate discrimination ability (C-statistic ≥0.7). Only two models were designed for the potentially preventable/avoidable readmissions and had C-statistic >0.8. The variables ‘comorbidities’, ‘length of stay’ and ‘previous admissions’ were frequently cited across 73 models. The variables ‘laboratory tests’ and ‘medication’ had more weight in the models for cardiovascular disease and medical condition-related readmissions. Conclusions: The predictive models which focused on general medical condition-related unplanned hospital readmissions reported moderate discriminative ability. Two models for potentially preventable/avoidable readmissions showed high discriminative ability. This updated systematic review, however, found inconsistent performance across the included unique 73 risk predictive models. It is critical to define clearly the utilisation outcomes and the type of accessible data source before the selection of the predictive model. Rigorous validation of the predictive models with moderate-to-high discriminative ability is essential, especially for the two models for the potentially preventable/avoidable readmissions. Given the limited available evidence, the development of a predictive model specifically for paediatric 28-day all-cause, unplanned hospital readmissions is a high priority.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011060

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 87 references

Cited by

See all 293

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, H., Della, P. R., Roberts, P., Goh, L., & Dhaliwal, S. S.
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-06
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
e011060
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2465057711
Cited by
293
References
87
FWCI
7.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Utility of models to predict 28-day or 30-day unplanned hospital readmissions: an updated systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011060
The paper
Zhou, H., Della, P. R., Roberts, P., Goh, L., & Dhaliwal, S. S. (2016). Utility of models to predict 28-day or 30-day unplanned hospital readmissions: an updated systematic review. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011060

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.