Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30537854›Full record

SynthesisClinical rehabilitation2019

Goal-setting in geriatric rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ewout B Smit, Hylco Bouwstra, Cees Mpm Hertogh, Elizabeth M Wattel, Johannes C van der Wouden

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) in Parkinson's: Randomized Trial Findings.Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie · 2026
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

5 authors.

Ewout B SmitDepartment of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3904-1251
Hylco BouwstraDepartment of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cees Mpm HertoghDepartment of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Elizabeth M WattelDepartment of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes C van der WoudenDepartment of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6639-6050

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objective: To explore the effect of goal-setting on physical functioning, quality of life and duration of rehabilitation in geriatric rehabilitation compared to care as usual. DATA SOURCES:: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched from initiation to October 2018.

methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after studies and studies using historic controls of older patients (mean age ⩾55 years) receiving rehabilitation for acquired disabilities. Our primary outcome was physical functioning; secondary outcomes were quality of life and rehabilitation duration. Cochrane guidelines were used to assess the risk of bias of the studies and extract data. Only RCT data were pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD).

results: We included 14 studies consisting of a total of 1915 participants with a mean age ranging from 55 to 83 years. Ten out of the 14 studies had a randomized controlled design, 7 of which could be pooled for the primary outcome. The risk of bias was judged high in several domains in all included studies. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between goal-setting and care as usual for physical functioning (SMD -0.11 (-0.32 to 0.10)), quality of life (SMD 0.09 (-0.56 to 0.75)) and rehabilitation duration (MD 13.46 days (-2.46 to 29.38)).

conclusion: We found low-quality evidence that goal-setting does not result in better physical functioning compared to care as usual in geriatric rehabilitation. For quality of life and duration of rehabilitation, we could not exclude a clinically relevant effect.

Indexed as

GoalsAgedHumansPersons with DisabilitiesQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicgeriatric rehabilitationgoal-settingPatient-centred careshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID30537854
PMCPMC6416788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.