ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2021
[Validation of the geriatrie-check for identification of geriatric patients in emergency departments].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary estimates of a multimodal AKTIVER Heart Delirium Prevention Program in patients indicated for cardiac surgery: study protocol of a randomized controlled PREVENT POstoperative Delirium (PREVENT-POD) Pilot Study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- Concomitant fractures in older patients with proximal femoral fractures: rib fractures are associated with increased complications and mortality for consideration in european geriatric medicine.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Unveiling the hidden risks: 90-day mortality and complications in older adults with proximal femur fractures.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- [Risk assessment in geriatric traumatology : Crucial role of anesthesiology].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2024Review
- Patients risk for mortality at 90 days after proximal femur fracture - a retrospective study in a tertiary care hospital.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Outcome predictors of odontogenic abscesses in the elderly.Frontiers in oral health · 2024Article
- Article
- [Trial of the GeriNOT screening tool : Identification of geriatric risk potentials on admission to hospital care from the age of 70 years].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2023Article
- Depression as a major component of a gait disorder-Successful multimodal treatment including electroconvulsive therapy : A case report.Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe geriatric check was developed for identification of geriatric patients in emergency departments (ED) as part of the concept for geriatric care in Baden-Württemberg.
aimDetermination of convergent and predictive validity of the geriatric check with respect to identification and outcome prediction of geriatric patients in the ED. MATERIAL AND
methodsA prospective cohort study between November 2015 and April 2016 including 146 patients older than 70 years in the internal medicine ED of Ulm University Hospital. Separate assessment by physicians and nursing staff of the following: identification of seniors at risk (ISAR), geriatric check, additional cognitive and functional assessments and for outcome: change in care index, Barthel index, living arrangements.
resultsThe ISAR classified 117 patients as geriatric patients and the geriatric check 107. The correlation was 78.1%. With ISAR as the gold standard the geriatric check showed a sensitivity of 82.0% and a specificity of 62.1%. The positive and negative predictive values were 89.7% and 46.1%, respectively. The identification by simple estimation was better for nurses than for doctors (sensitivity 70.5% vs. 58%, specificity 88.9% vs. 83.3%). The predictive validity 5 months after admission with respect to the abovementioned outcome parameters was best for nurses and doctors (especially regarding specificity). Both tests were very sensitive but not very specific. DISCUSSION: The geriatric check is comparable to the ISAR. The convergent validity showed little difference. Both the ISAR and geriatric check were slightly more sensitive than doctors and nurses. Regarding predictive validity, doctors and nurses were superior to both scores. An algorithm starting with ISAR or geriatric check and followed by an estimation by doctors or nurses could be most suitable for optimal resource allocation.
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.