ReviewZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2017
[Geriatrics or geriatricization of medicine : Quo vadis geriatrics?]
Review in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Challenges and potential of geriatric research in Germany-Insights from the GERisearch survey].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2026Article
- [40th anniversary of the German Society of Geriatrics (DGG)-In demand, matured, strengthened : History of the DGG concerning scientific and professional political aspects].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2025Review
- Outpatient geriatric health care in the German federal state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania: a population-based spatial analysis of claims data.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Interprofessional geriatric assessment in nursing home (IgAP): a curricular development in geriatrics.GMS journal for medical education · 2022Article
- Population change and the burden of hospitalization in Germany 2000-2040: Decomposition analysis and projection.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article examines the question whether and how geriatrics will change in the future and whether in view of the demographic changes the trend will go more in the direction of a further expansion of geriatrics or more towards a geriatricization of individual specialist medical fields. The different development of geriatrics in the individual Federal States can only be understood historically and is absolutely problematic against the background of the new hospital remuneration system. Geriatrics is a typical cross-sectional faculty and still has demarcation problems with other faculties but has also not yet clearly defined the core competence. This certainly includes the increasing acquisition of decentralized joint treatment concepts and geriatric counselling services in the future, in addition to the classical assessment instruments. Keywords in association with this are: traumatology and othopedics of the elderly, geriatric neurology and geriatric oncology. Interdisciplinary geriatric expertise is increasingly being requested. Outpatient structures have so far not been prioritized in geriatrics. An independent research is under construction and it is gratifying that academic interest in geriatrics seems to be increasing and new professorial chairs have been established. It is not possible to imagine our hospital without geriatrics; however, there is still a certain imbalance between the clearly increased number of geriatric hospital beds, the representation of geriatrics in large hospitals (e.g. specialized and maximum care hospitals and university clinics), the secure establishment in further education regulations and the lack of a uniform nationwide concept of geriatrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28707192What 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.