Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27052960›Full record

ReviewBMC geriatrics2016

People with dementia in nursing home research: a methodological review of the definition and identification of the study population.

Rebecca Palm, Saskia Jünger, Sven Reuther, Christian G G Schwab, Martin N Dichter, Bernhard Holle, Margareta Halek

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC geriatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Quality of life in people with dementia living in nursing homes: validation of an eight-item version of the QUALIDEM for intensive longitudinal assessment.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca PalmGerman Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Witten, Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany. rebecca.palm@dzne.de.
Saskia JüngerHannover Medical School, Institute of General Medicine, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Sven ReutherGerman Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Witten, Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany.
Christian G G SchwabGerman Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Witten, Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany.
Martin N DichterGerman Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Witten, Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany.
Bernhard HolleGerman Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Witten, Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany.
Margareta HalekGerman Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Witten, Stockumer Str. 12, 58453, Witten, Germany.
Witten/Herdecke University · DEGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are various definitions and diagnostic criteria for dementia, leading to discrepancies in case ascertainment in both clinical practice and research. We reviewed the different definitions, approaches and measurements used to operationalize dementia in health care studies in German nursing homes with the aim of discussing the implications of different approaches.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases to identify pre-2016 studies conducted in German nursing homes that focused on residents with dementia or cognitive impairment. In- or exclusion of studies were consented by all authors; data extraction was independently carried out by 2 authors (RP, SJ). The studies' sampling methods were compared with respect to their inclusion criteria, assessment tools and methods used to identify the study population.

resultsWe summarized case ascertainment methods from 64 studies. Study participants were identified based on a diagnosis that was evaluated during the study, or a recorded medical dementia diagnosis, or a recorded medical diagnosis either with additional cognitive screenings or using screening tests exclusively. The descriptions of the diagnostics that were applied to assess a diagnosis of dementia were not fully transparent in most of the studies with respect to either a clear reference definition of dementia or applied diagnostic criteria. If reported, various neuropsychological tests were used, mostly without a clear rationale for their selection.

conclusionPragmatic considerations often determine the sampling strategy; they also may explain the variances we detected in the different studies. Variations in sampling methods impede the comparability of study results. There is a need to consent case ascertainment strategies in dementia studies in health service research in nursing homes. These strategies should consider resource constraints and ethical issues that are related to the vulnerable population of nursing home residents. Additionally, reporting about dementia studies in nursing homes need to be improved. If a diagnosis cannot be evaluated based on either ICD or DSM criteria, the study population may not be reported as having dementia. If a diagnosis is evaluated based on ICD or DSM criteria within the study, there is a need for more transparency of the diagnostic process.

Indexed as

Homes for the AgedNursing HomesAgedAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseCognition DisordersDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMental Status ScheduleNeuropsychological TestsNursing ResearchPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsCognitive impairmentDementiaDiagnosisHealth services researchNursing homeSymptom assessment

Identifiers

PMID27052960
PMCPMC4823911
OpenAlexW2325480436

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.