Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30103672›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2018

Cross-sectional study of prevalence of dementia, behavioural symptoms, mobility, pain and other health parameters in nursing homes in Austria and the Czech Republic: results from the DEMDATA project.

Stefanie R Auer, Margit Höfler, Elisabeth Linsmayer, Anna Beránková, Doris Prieschl, Paulina Ratajczak, Michal Šteffl, Iva Holmerová

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Stefanie R AuerDanube University Krems, Dr.Karl-Dorrekstrasse 30, 3500, Krems, Austria. stefanie.auer@donau-uni.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8893-6932
Margit HöflerDanube University Krems, Dr.Karl-Dorrekstrasse 30, 3500, Krems, Austria.
Elisabeth LinsmayerMAS Alzheimerhilfe, Lindau Strasse 28, 4820, Bad Ischl, Austria.
Anna BeránkováCharles University, Šimůnkova 1600, 8- Kobylisy, 182 00, Prague, Czech Republic.
Doris PrieschlMAS Alzheimerhilfe, Lindau Strasse 28, 4820, Bad Ischl, Austria.
Paulina RatajczakDanube University Krems, Dr.Karl-Dorrekstrasse 30, 3500, Krems, Austria.
Michal ŠtefflCharles University, Šimůnkova 1600, 8- Kobylisy, 182 00, Prague, Czech Republic.
Iva HolmerováCharles University, Šimůnkova 1600, 8- Kobylisy, 182 00, Prague, Czech Republic.
Charles University · CZUniversität für Weiterbildung Krems · ATMAS Alzheimerhilfe · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis paper provides a first comparative exploratory analysis of our findings from DEMDATA, a collaborative project between Austria and the Czech Republic. Analysed here are data from the residents and the environment assessment protocol.

methodsIn a cross sectional study design, residents from randomly drawn and stratified nursing homes were investigated using a common study protocol.

resultsFrom a total resident pool of 1666 persons, 1085 (571 in Austria, 514 in the Czech Republic) persons signed a consent form and participated in the data collection. More than 70% of residents assessed were female and the population was on average 85 years old. A discrepancy between the presence of a medical diagnosis in the charts of the residents and the results of cognitive testing was found. In Austria, 85.2%, in the Czech Republic 53.0% of residents had cognitive impairment. In Austria 80.0%, and in the Czech Republic 56.7% had behavioural problems. With respect to pain, 44.8% in Austria, and 51.5% in the Czech Republic had mild to severe pain. 78.4% of Austrian and 74.5% of the residents had problems with mobility and both populations were in danger of malnutrition.

conclusionsMost of the prevalence rates are comparable with previous studies also using direct resident assessment. Variations in prevalence rates seem to result mainly from the assessment technique (direct cognitive testing vs. medical chart review). The high prevalence rates for dementia, behavioural symptoms, pain and malnutrition indicate an immediate call for attention to further research and practice development.

Indexed as

Mobility LimitationAgedAged, 80 and overAustriaBehavioral SymptomsCognitive DysfunctionCross-Sectional StudiesCzech RepublicDementiaFemaleHomes for the AgedHumansMaleNursing HomesPainPrevalenceDementia prevalenceMalnutritionNursing homePainPrevalence of behavioural symptoms

Identifiers

PMID30103672
PMCPMC6090593
OpenAlexW2886405157

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.