Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22622675›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2012

[Health and competence: detection and decoding using comprehensive assessments in the Longitudinal Urban Cohort Ageing Study (LUCAS)].

J Anders, F Pröfener, U Dapp, S Golgert, A Daubmann, K Wegscheider, W von Renteln-Kruse, C E Minder

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

J AndersForschungsabteilung, Zentrum für Geriatrie und Gerontologie, Albertinen-Haus, Wissenschaftliche Einrichtung an der Universität Hamburg, Sellhopsweg 18-22, 22459 Hamburg. Jenny.Anders@albertinen.de
F Pröfener
U Dapp
S Golgert
A Daubmann
K Wegscheider
W von Renteln-Kruse
C E Minder
Universität Hamburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe goal of this work was to characterise and distinguish persons without (fit), with earliest signs (pre-frail) or accelerated functional decline (frail) during self-referral (geriatric centre) or preventive home visits.

methodsAfter screening independently living older people in an urban longitudinal cohort (n = 1,995) using a self-administered questionnaire, they were functionally classified as fit, pre-frail or frail. In 10% randomly selected samples of these cohort parts a comprehensive extended gerontological-geriatric assessment (EGGA) was administered.

resultsFit, pre-frail and frail samples are significantly different regarding comorbidity, medication, mobility, fall risk, instrumental activities of daily living and use of social support but not nutrition. The best indicator to discriminate fit versus frail was exhaustion (mobility tiredness).

conclusionCompetence is essential regarding health in old age. Identification of resources and risks by comprehensive assessment is useful before planning interventions to prevent frailty or its progression.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingFrail ElderlySurveys and QuestionnairesAged, 80 and overChronic DiseaseCohort StudiesFemaleGeriatric AssessmentGermanyHealth Status IndicatorsHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMass ScreeningPhysical FitnessPilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID22622675
OpenAlexW2199698614

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.