Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25586322›Full record

SynthesisZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2015

[Case management studies for individuals 65 years and older in Germany: Systematic review of the currently published state of research].

Beate Gaertner, Anna Herzog, Martin Holzhausen, Stefan Schmidt

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. [Cost-Effectiveness of Case and Care Management in Older Populations in Germany: a Systematic Literature Review].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Beate GaertnerAbteilung für Epidemiologie und Gesundheitsmonitoring, Robert Koch-Institut, General-Pape-Str. 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Deutschland, gaertnerb@rki.de.
Anna Herzog
Martin Holzhausen
Stefan Schmidt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview on the current state of published research on case management (CM) according to the definition of the German Association of Care and Case Management (DGCC) for individuals 65 years and older in Germany. MATERIAL AND

methodsA systematic literature search was carried out for CM studies according to the DGCC in Germany since 2000 including individuals aged 65 years and older.

resultsOf the 249 abstracts retrieved a total of 14 evaluation and intervention studies of 10 different projects fulfilled the inclusion criteria. According to the results of the five evaluation studies, CM was feasible and barriers to implementation as well as satisfaction and positive effects of CM were described. The quality and outcome criteria of the intervention studies were heterogeneous. The results of the intervention studies can be interpreted as CM having positive effects on, for example hospital admissions and mortality.

conclusionOnly few and qualitatively heterogeneous studies are currently available on the intervention effects of CM in Germany among this age group. So far robust scientific evidence of this method in Germany seems to be lacking.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBiomedical ResearchCase ManagementEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGeriatricsGermanyHealth Services for the AgedHumansMalePeriodicals as Topic

Identifiers

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.