Observational studyMedicine2019
Medical resource utilization patterns and mortality rates according to age among critically ill patients admitted to a medical intensive care unit.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. 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.
- Skeletal Muscle Mass, Strength, and Functional Status in Critically Ill Older Adults Aged 60-75 and over 80 Years Old: An Exploratory Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Translational health technology and system schemes: enhancing the dynamics of health informatics.Health information science and systems · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is ongoing controversy about how to address the growing demand for intensive care for critically ill elderly patients. We investigated resource utilization patterns and mortality rates according to age among critically ill patients.We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients admitted to a medical intensive care unit (ICU) in a tertiary referral teaching hospital between July 2006 and June 2015. Patients were categorized into non-elderly (age <65 years, n = 4140), young-elderly (age 65-74 years, n = 2306), and old-elderly (age ≥75 years, n = 1508) groups.Among 7954 admissions, the mean age was 61.5 years, and 5061 (63.6%) were of male patients. The proportion of comorbidities increased with age (64.6% in the non-elderly vs 81.4% in the young-elderly vs 82.8% in the old-elderly, P < .001 and P for trend <.001), whereas the baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score decreased with age (8.1 in the non-elderly vs 7.2 in the young-elderly vs 7.2 in the old-elderly, P < .001, R = -.092 and P for trend <.001). Utilization rates of mechanical ventilation (48.6% in the non-elderly vs 48.3% in the young-elderly vs 45.5% in the old-elderly, P = .11) and renal replacement therapy (27.5% in the non-elderly vs 25.5% in the young-elderly vs 24.8% in the old-elderly, P = .069) were comparable between the age groups. The 28-day ICU mortality rates were lower in the young-elderly and the old-elderly groups than in the non-elderly group (35.6% in the non-elderly vs 34.2% in the young-elderly, P = .011; and vs 32.6% in the old-elderly, P = .002).A substantial number of critically ill elderly patients used medical resources as non-elderly patients and showed favorable clinical outcomes. Our results support that underlying medical conditions rather than age per se need to be considered for determining intensive care.
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.