ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2018
[Caregiver intervention studies : Recommendations on endpoints and outcome measures for cognitively impaired care recipients].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Self-administered Version of the Functioning Assessment Short Test for Use in Population-based Studies: A Pilot Study.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2020Article
- Neuropsychiatric symptoms differently affect mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease patients: a retrospective observational study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEven though the intervention effects on cognitively impaired care recipients are of interest, the evaluation in dementia caregiver studies on caregiver outcomes is often limited. Furthermore, the comparison of studies and interventions is difficult because of the large variance of endpoints and assessments used in this field.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to give an overview on the most prevalent outcomes for cognitively impaired care recipients and expert based recommendations for assessment. MATERIAL AND
methodsA written Delphi survey was carried out on 16 assessments from 5 dimensions with 14 experts working in different disciplines in German healthcare and research institutes.
resultsThe most important outcomes and best rated assessments were 1) for problem behavior: revised memory and behavior problem checklist and neuropsychiatric inventory Q, 2) for depressive symptoms: geriatric depression scale, 3) for quality of life: quality of life in Alzheimer's disease, 4) for cognition: mini mental state examination and 5) for ADL/IADL: Katz activities of daily living and Lawton instrumental activities of daily living.
conclusionDue to the varying experiences of the experts with particular assessments, the ratings were in some cases relatively heterogeneous. Overall previous international recommendations could be confirmed. There is particular need of German validation studies on internationally used instruments within the dimensions of problem behavior and quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27342103What 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.