Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25978312›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Characteristics of randomized controlled trials designed for elderly: a systematic review.

Karen Broekhuizen, Axel Pothof, Anton J M de Craen, Simon P Mooijaart

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
23.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Barriers to Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Adults in the United States: A Systematic Review with a Focus on Age.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Modifiable determinants of older adults' physical activity and sedentary behavior in community and healthcare settings: a DE-PASS systematic review and meta-analysis.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karen BroekhuizenDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands; Institute for Evidence-Based Medicine in Old Age, IEMO, Leiden, Netherlands.
Axel PothofDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Anton J M de CraenDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Simon P MooijaartDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands; Institute for Evidence-Based Medicine in Old Age, IEMO, Leiden, Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo quantify the proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically designed for elderly, and to assess their characteristics, as compared to RCTs not specifically designed for elderly.

designReview and synthesis of published literature. MEASUREMENTS: We searched PubMed for articles published in the year 2012. We included RCTs. Articles were excluded if not conducted with human subjects or if findings of secondary analyses were reported. A random sample of 10% was drawn and of this selection the following trial characteristics were extracted: sample size, disease category, age of sample, and age-related inclusion criteria. Clinical trials were defined to be specifically designed for elderly if a lower age cut-off of ≥ 55 years was used, or when participants had an average age of ≥ 70 years.

resultsThe search strategy yielded 26,740 articles, from which a random sample was drawn, resulting in 2375 articles. After exclusion, data was extracted from 1369 publications. Of these 1369 RCTs, 96 (7%) were specifically designed for elderly. In comparison with trials not designed for older adults, trials designed for elderly contained a significantly larger median number of participants (125 vs. 80, p = 0.008) significantly more trials designed for elderly fell into the disease categories eye (6% vs. 2%, p = 0.005), musculoskeletal (13% vs. 7%, p = 0.023) and circulatory system (16% vs. 9%, p = 0.039). No significant difference was observed with regard to the other disease categories.

conclusionThere is a low proportion of RCTs specifically designed for elderly. As older patients will increasingly form the majority in medical practice, there is an urgent need for stronger evidence for the formulation of treatment guidelines specifically for older adults.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultAgedHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID25978312
PMCPMC4433127
OpenAlexW208576153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.