Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32112273›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2021

[Validation of the geriatrie-check for identification of geriatric patients in emergency departments].

Tobias Gerhard, Kristina Mayer, Ulrike Braisch, Dhayana Dallmeier, Michael Jamour, Jochen Klaus, Thomas Seufferlein, Michael Denkinger

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tobias GerhardGeriatrische Forschung der Universität Ulm, AGAPLESION Bethesda Ulm, Zollernring 26, 89073, Ulm, Deutschland.
Kristina MayerGeriatrische Forschung der Universität Ulm, AGAPLESION Bethesda Ulm, Zollernring 26, 89073, Ulm, Deutschland.
Ulrike BraischGeriatrische Forschung der Universität Ulm, AGAPLESION Bethesda Ulm, Zollernring 26, 89073, Ulm, Deutschland.
Dhayana DallmeierGeriatrische Forschung der Universität Ulm, AGAPLESION Bethesda Ulm, Zollernring 26, 89073, Ulm, Deutschland.
Michael JamourGeriatrische Rehabilitationsklinik Ehingen, Ehingen, Deutschland.
Jochen KlausKlinik für Innere Medizin I, Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Ulm, Deutschland.
Thomas SeufferleinKlinik für Innere Medizin I, Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Ulm, Deutschland.
Michael DenkingerGeriatrische Forschung der Universität Ulm, AGAPLESION Bethesda Ulm, Zollernring 26, 89073, Ulm, Deutschland. michael.denkinger@bethesda-ulm.de.
University Hospital Ulm · DEUniversität Ulm · DEInstitut für Medizinische Biometrie, Informatik und Epidemiologie · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Emergency Service, HospitalGeriatric AssessmentAgedHospitalizationHumansProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentEmergency departmentGeriatric AssessmentGeriatrie-CheckIdentification of geriatric patientsIdentification of Seniors at RiskScreeningValidation

Identifiers

PMID32112273
PMCPMC7946687
OpenAlexW3008119294

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.