Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28728570›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2017

Health promotion interventions for community-dwelling older people with mild or pre-frailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rachael Frost, Celia Belk, Ana Jovicic, Federico Ricciardi, Kalpa Kharicha, Benjamin Gardner, Steve Iliffe, Claire Goodman, Jill Manthorpe, Vari M Drennan and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors.

Rachael FrostDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Celia BelkDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Ana JovicicDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Federico RicciardiDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Kalpa KharichaDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Benjamin GardnerDepartment of Psychology, King's College London, London, UK.
Steve IliffeDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Claire GoodmanCentre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, UK.
Jill ManthorpeSocial Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, UK.
Vari M DrennanCentre for Health and Social Care Research, Kingston University & St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Kate WaltersDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK. k.walters@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2173-2430

Funding

Department of Health HTA/12/192/10Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-UMarie Curie MCCC-FPO-16-U
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMild or pre-frailty is common and associated with increased risks of hospitalisation, functional decline, moves to long-term care, and death. Little is known about the effectiveness of health promotion in reducing these risks. This systematic review aimed to synthesise randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating home and community-based health promotion interventions for older people with mild/pre-frailty.

methodsWe searched 20 bibliographic databases and 3 trials registers (January 1990 - May 2016) using mild/pre-frailty and associated terms. We included randomised controlled and crossover trials of health promotion interventions for community-dwelling older people (65+ years) with mild/pre-frailty and excluded studies focussing on populations in hospital, long term care facilities or with a specific condition. Risk of bias was assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We pooled study results using standardised mean differences (SMD) where possible and used narrative synthesis where insufficient outcome data were available.

resultsWe included 10 articles reporting on seven trials (total n = 506 participants) and included five trials in a meta-analysis. Studies were predominantly small, of limited quality and six studies tested group exercise alone. One study additionally investigated a nutrition and exercise intervention and one evaluated telemonitoring. Interventions of exercise in groups showed mixed effects on functioning (no effects on self-reported functioning SMD 0.19 (95% CI -0.57 to 0.95) n = 3 studies; positive effects on performance-based functioning SMD 0.37 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.68) n = 3 studies). No studies assessed moves to long-term care or hospitalisations.

conclusionsCurrently the evidence base is of insufficient size, quality and breadth to recommend specific health promotion interventions for older people with mild or pre- frailty. High quality studies of rigorously developed interventions are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42014010370 (Review 2).

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyIndependent LivingAgedAged, 80 and overExerciseFrailtyHealth PromotionHospitalizationHumansLong-Term CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicFrailtyHealth promotionPre-frailtySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28728570
PMCPMC5520298

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.