ReviewZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2018
[Effectiveness of preventive house visits for elderly people : Systematic assessment of current literature].
Review 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.
- [Preventive home visits as an intervention to promote the health of older people].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Effect of Home Visits by Nurses on the Physical and Psychosocial Health of Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Iranian journal of public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreventive home visits (PHV) document health resources and risks in the domestic environment in order to derive preventive recommendations. An earlier review did not yield reliable proof of their efficacy for the elderly; however, PHV are used increasingly more as a municipal service in Germany.
objectiveThis article evaluates the efficacy of PHV by means of evidence-based criteria. MATERIAL AND
methodsIndependent of the reason, randomized controlled studies (RCT) and systematic reviews on PHV in the elderly (60+ years) that were published after 2004 were identified by means of searching pertinent literature databases. The outcomes evaluated were mortality, hospitalization, admission to nursing home, functional status, falls and quality of life.
resultsThe 12 RCT included (for the first time including a German trial) showed a high clinical heterogeneity, good methodological quality and only few bias potentials. As few as 6 out of the 12 RCT showed positive effects for individual outcomes, rarely exceeding the period of the intervention and partly limited to individual subgroups; however, almost no negative effects were reported. The four review articles included did not show any reliable proof of efficacy of PHV regarding any of the evaluated outcomes either.
conclusionIn the current literature no clear proof of the efficacy of PHV could be identified. No structure or process features having an efficacy regarding several outcomes could be derived either. Thus, the current use of PHV is still being made without any clear evidence of efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29116377What 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.