ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2012
Primary care guidelines for geriatric assessment. A structured, comparative analysis.
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geriatric assessment in undergraduate geriatric education - a structured interpretation guide improves the quantity and accuracy of the results: a cohort comparison.BMC medical education · 2013Article
- Feasibility, understandability, and usefulness of the STEP self-rating questionnaire: results of a cross-sectional study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A structured geriatric assessment (GA) improves the quality of health care; however, the quality of GA guidelines has hardly been investigated. Eight guidelines were identified by systematically searching guideline databases, web sites of guideline developers, and PubMed. The methodological quality was assessed by two appraisers using the German Guideline Evaluation Instrument (DELBI). Guideline content was extracted; organizational and medical recommendations were compared. The methodological appraisal revealed a broad range of quality. The domains "Scope and purpose" and "Clarity and presentation" showed good results. The domains "Applicability" and "Editorial independence" had results that were not as good. Medical recommendations agreed to a great extent. GA should be delivered continuously for all older people in their homes by one responsible assessor. In cooperation with relatives, patient-centered therapy goals should be defined. Differences were identified in profession, instruments, aims, and "tailoring." The quality of primary care guidelines for GA may be improved. Details of organization of a GA require further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21805190What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.