心力衰竭患者居家医院疗效的系统评价与荟萃分析

数据集获取（Figshare）

• 源站标题：Efficacy of Hospital at Home in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
• DOI：10.1371/journal.pone.0129282
• 发布日期：2015-06-08
• 文件数：10 个
• 文件总体积：499.72 KB
• 源站页面：https://plos.figshare.com/articles/dataset/_Efficacy_of_Hospital_at_Home_in_Patients_with_Heart_Failure_A_Systematic_Review_and_Meta_Analysis_/1441028

命令行下载

curl -L -o "S1_PRISMA_Checklist.doc" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2101068"
curl -L -o "S1_Fig.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2101069"
curl -L -o "S2_Fig.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2101070"
curl -L -o "S1_Table.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2101071"
curl -L -o "S2_Table.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2101072"
curl -L -o "S3_Table.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2101073"
curl -L -o "S4_Table.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2101074"
curl -L -o "S5_Table.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2101075"

文件清单

• S1_PRISMA_Checklist.doc（64.51 KB）
• S1_Fig.docx（50.80 KB）
• S2_Fig.docx（45.33 KB）
• S1_Table.docx（15.28 KB）
• S2_Table.docx（16.75 KB）
• S3_Table.docx（16.96 KB）
• S4_Table.docx（16.81 KB）
• S5_Table.docx（19.82 KB）
• S6_Table.docx（212.51 KB）
• S7_Table.docx（40.95 KB）

文件总体积 499.72 KB（源站 API 实测）。

数据说明

Background
Heart failure (HF) is the commonest cause of hospitalization in older adults. Compared to routine hospitalization (RH), hospital at home (HaH)—substitutive hospital-level care in the patient’s home—improves outcomes and reduces costs in patients with general medical conditions. The efficacy of HaH in HF is unknown.
Methods and Results
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL, for publications from January 1990 to October 2014. We included prospective studies comparing substitutive models of hospitalization to RH in HF. At least 2 reviewers independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed quality. We meta-analyzed results from 3 RCTs (n = 203) and narratively synthesized results from 3 observational studies (n = 329). Study quality was modest. In RCTs, HaH increased time to first readmission (mean difference (MD) 14.13 days [95% CI 10.36 to 17.91]), and improved health-related quality of life (HrQOL) at both, 6 months (standardized MD (SMD) -0.31 [-0.45 to -0.18]) and 12 months (SMD -0.17 [-0.31 to -0.02]). In RCTs, HaH demonstrated a trend to decreased readmissions (risk ratio (RR) 0.68 [0.42 to 1.09]), and had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94 [0.67 to 1.32]). HaH decreased costs of index hospitalization in all RCTs. HaH reduced readmissions and emergency department visits per patient in all 3 observational studies.
Conclusions
In the context of a limited number of modest-quality studies, HaH appears to increase time to readmission, reduce index costs, and improve HrQOL among patients requiring hospital-level care for HF. Larger RCTs are necessary to assess the effect of HaH on readmissions, mortality, and long-term costs.

许可

CC BY 4.0

引用

学术使用请引用 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0129282（source: https://plos.figshare.com/articles/dataset/_Efficacy_of_Hospital_at_Home_in_Patients_with_Heart_Failure_A_Systematic_Review_and_Meta_Analysis_/1441028）。