ReviewZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2018
[Preoperative risk identification using the Identification of Seniors at Risk? : Suitability as sole screening tool for inpatient aged risk patients].
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supporting SURgery with GEriatric Co-Management and AI (SURGE-Ahead): A study protocol for the development of a digital geriatrician.PloS one · 2023Article
- The Predictive Value of the "Identification of Seniors at Risk" Score on Mortality, Length of Stay, Mobility and the Destination of Discharge of Geriatric Hip Fracture Patients.Clinical interventions in aging · 2022Article
- Does age alone negatively predict the outcome of sacral neuromodulation? A single-centre retrospective observational study.BMC urology · 2020Observational
- Improving Treatment of Elderly Patients by Interprofessional Education in a Quality Network of Geriatric Medicine: Protocol for Evaluating an Educational Initiative.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs more aged patients are surgically treated in hospitals without specialized geriatric care, patients at risk for perioperative complications must be identified and treatment must be adapted. The aim was the use of the Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) as a screening tool for the identification of high-risk patients, who need specialized perioperative care. The study presented investigated the use of ISAR screening not only as recommended in the emergency room but also in validation tests as a new option in elective surgery. MATERIAL AND
methodsRoutine data recorded during inpatient admission of 389 patients were evaluated retrospectively. The ISAR as well as a cognitive screening with the mini mental state examination (MMSE) were conducted in patients as long as a previously diagnosed dementia was not present. Delirium was recorded using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). A total of 88 patients from trauma surgery served as an example for emergency surgery and 93 patients from orthopedics for elective surgery. All patients received treatment by the department of Anesthetic and Perioperative Geriatric Care.
resultsAccording to an ISAR score of ≥2 points, 85.2% of traumatology and 48.4% of elective orthopedic patients were considered to be geriatric high-risk patients. Among ISAR negative patients many suffered from preoperative cognitive decline (MMST or diagnosed dementia), especially in the elective orthopedics group. Delirium occurred in 5.7% of trauma surgery patients and in 4.3% of elective orthopedic patients.
conclusionWith 2 as a cut-off, the use of ISAR as a screening tool was only conditionally suitable. In particular, the expected filter function was not fulfilled in both groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.