Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11034735›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Subjective barriers to prevent wandering of cognitively impaired people.

J D Price, D G Hermans, Grimley Evans J

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Subjective barriers to prevent wandering of cognitively impaired people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2000
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Environmental interventions and the design of homes for older adults with dementia: an overview.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias · 2010
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. A framework for managing wandering and preventing elopement.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J D PriceDivision of Clinical Geratology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Woodstock Road, Oxford, Oxon, UK, OX1 4PX. james.price@geratology.ox.ac.uk
D G Hermans
Grimley Evans J
University of Oxford · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with dementia often wander, at times putting themselves at risk and presenting challenges to carers and institutional staff. Traditional interventions to prevent wandering include restraint, drugs and locked doors. Cognitively impaired people may respond to environmental stimuli (sounds, images, smells) in ways distinct from healthy people. This has led to trials of visual and other selective barriers (such as mirrors, camouflage, grids/stripes of tape) that may reduce wandering.

objectivesWe assess the effect of subjective exit modifications on the wandering behaviour of cognitively impaired people. The second objective is to inform the direction and methods of future research. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy includes electronic searches of relevant bibliographic and trials databases, citation indices and relevant medical journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled trials provide the highest quality evidence, but interrupted time series are also considered as they may contribute useful information. Participants are people with dementia or cognitive impairment who wander, of any age, and in any care environment - hospital, other institution, or their own home. Interventions comprise exit modifications that aim to function as subjective barriers to prevent the wandering of cognitively impaired people. Locks, physical restraints, electronic tagging and other types of barrier are not included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The criteria for inclusion or exclusion of studies are applied independently by two reviewers. All outcomes that are meaningful to people making decisions about the care of wanderers are recorded. These include the number of exits or carer interventions, resource use, acceptability of the intervention and the effects on carer and wanderer anxiety or distress. heterogeneity of clinical area, of study design and of intervention was substantial. MAIN

resultsNo randomized controlled or controlled trials were found. The other experimental studies that we identified were unsatisfactory. Most were vulnerable to bias, particularly performance bias; most did not classify patients according to type or severity of dementia; in all studies, outcomes were measured only in terms of wandering frequency rather than more broadly in terms of quality of life, resource use, anxiety and distress; no studies included patients with delirium; no studies were based in patients' homes. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere is no evidence that subjective barriers prevent wandering in cognitively impaired people.

Indexed as

Architectural AccessibilityAgedCaregiversCognition DisordersDementiaFloors and FloorcoveringsHumansOrientationWalking

Identifiers

PMID11034735
PMCPMC8406984
OpenAlexW2160468909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.