ArticleBMC geriatrics2020
Evaluation of an ambulatory geriatric rehabilitation program - results of a matched cohort study based on claims data.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Exploratory Study Investigating Factors Influencing the Outpatient Delivery of Geriatric Rehabilitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Improving Health Care for Patients with Multimorbidity: A Mixed-Methods Study to Explore the Feasibility and Process of Aligning Scheduled Outpatient Appointments through Collaboration between Medical Specialties.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmbulatory geriatric rehabilitation (AGR) is a multidisciplinary outpatient prevention program designed to decrease hospitalisation and dependence on nursing care in multimorbid patients ≥70 years of age. We evaluated the effectiveness of AGR compared to usual care on progression of nursing care levels, nursing home admissions, hospital admissions, incident fractures, mortality rate and total cost of care during a one-year follow-up period.
methodsAnalyses were based on claims data from the health insurance company AOK Nordost. Propensity Score matching was used to match 4 controls to each person receiving the AGR intervention.
resultsA total of 632 AGR participants and 2528 matched controls were included. The standardized mean difference of matching variables between cases and controls was small (mean: + 1.4%; range: - 4.4/3.9%). In AGR patients, the progression of nursing care levels (+ 2.2%, 95%CI: - 0.9 /5.3), nursing home admissions (+ 1.7%, 95%CI: - 0.1/3.5), hospital admissions (+ 1.1%, 95%CI: - 3.2/5.4), incident fractures (+ 11.1%, 95%CI: 7.3/15) and mortality rate (+ 1.2%, p = 0.20) showed a less favourable course compared to controls. The average total cost per AGR participant was lower than in the control group (- 353€, 95%CI: - 989€/282€), not including costs for AGR.
conclusionsAnalysis based on claims data showed no clinical benefit from AGR intervention regarding the investigated outcomes. The slightly worse outcomes may reflect limitations in matching based on claims data, which may have insufficiently reflected morbidity and psychosocial factors. It is possible that the intervention group had poorer health status at baseline compared to the control group.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00008926, registered 29.07.2015.
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.