ArticleCanadian geriatrics journal : CGJ2014
Consensus statements on the assessment of older drivers.
Article in Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Candrive-Development of a Risk Stratification Tool for Older Drivers.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2023Article
- Medications and traffic accidents involving older drivers: do Spanish primary healthcare physicians know enough?BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Discussions About Driving Between Older Adults and Primary Care Providers.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2016Observational
- System facilitators and barriers to discussing older driver safety in primary care settings.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2015Article
- I Have Something Interesting To Talk To You About: Speaking To Disagree, Agreeably.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2015Article
- Special issue on fitness to drive.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapidly increasing number of older drivers is accentuating the challenges in concurrently identifying older drivers posing an unacceptable risk if they continue to drive, while not discriminating against those capable of safely driving. Attendees of an invitational meeting about the assessment of older drivers were asked to participate in a modified Delphi process designed to develop consensus statements on the assessment of older drivers.
methodsForty-one non-student symposium attendees were invited to participate in two rounds of a survey, in which they were asked to indicate their level of agreement (or disagreement) on a five-point Likert scale to a series of statements about the assessment of older drivers. Consensus was defined as 80% + of respondents either agreeing or disagreeing with a statement.
resultsMore than one-half (n = 23) completed the first round of the survey and 12 participated in the second. There was consensus on the need for a modifiable, fair, rational, and widely accessible multi-step approach to the assessment of older drivers. This would require the engagement and support of physicians and other health-care practitioners in identifying and reporting medically at-risk drivers of any age. At a societal level, alternatives to driving a personal motor vehicle should be developed.
conclusionsAn on-going dialogue about this complex issue is required. Decisions should be based on explicitly stated principles and informed by the best available evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.