Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30968287›Full record

SynthesisAging clinical and experimental research2020

Comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care: a systematic review.

James W Garrard, Natalie J Cox, Richard M Dodds, Helen C Roberts, Avan A Sayer

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Why should we assess the degree of frailty in primary care?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 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

5 authors.

James W GarrardRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 2JD, UK. james.garrard@rdm.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2771-0099
Natalie J CoxAcademic Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4297-1206
Richard M DoddsAcademic Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4968-7678
Helen C RobertsAcademic Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5291-1880
Avan A SayerAcademic Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1283-6457

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) involves the multidimensional assessment and management of an older person. It is well described in hospital and home-based settings. A novel approach could be to perform CGA within primary healthcare, the initial community located healthcare setting for patients, improving accessibility to a co-located multidisciplinary team.

aimTo appraise the evidence on CGA implemented within the primary care practice.

methodsThe review followed PRISMA recommendations. Eligible studies reported CGA on persons aged ≥ 65 in a primary care practice. Studies focusing on a single condition were excluded. Searches were run in five databases; reference lists and publications were screened. Two researchers independently screened for eligibility and assessed study quality. All study outcomes were reviewed.

resultsThe authors screened 9003 titles, 145 abstracts and 97 full texts. Four studies were included. Limited study bias was observed. Studies were heterogeneous in design and reported outcomes. CGAs were led by a geriatrician (n = 3) or nurse practitioner (n = 1), with varied length and extent of follow-up (12-48 months). Post-intervention hospital admission rates showed mixed results, with improved adherence to medication modifications. No improvement in survival or functional outcomes was observed. Interventions were widely accepted and potentially cost-effective. DISCUSSION: The four studies demonstrated that CGA was acceptable and provided variable outcome benefit. Further research is needed to identify the most effective strategy for implementing CGA in primary care. Particular questions include identification of patients suitable for CGA within primary care CGA, a consensus list of outcome measures, and the role of different healthcare professionals in delivering CGA.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentPrimary Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overGeriatriciansHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareComprehensive geriatric assessmentOlder peoplePrimary care

Identifiers

PMID30968287
PMCPMC7033083

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.