ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2020
[Post-acute geriatric rehabilitation outcomes in fracture patients treated in an orthogeriatric trauma center-A prospective investigation with historical control].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- [40th anniversary of the German Society of Geriatrics (DGG)-In demand, matured, strengthened : History of the DGG concerning scientific and professional political aspects].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2025Review
- [Centers for geriatric trauma DGU® : Distribution and development in Germany].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the increasing amount of positive evidence with respect to mortality for the orthogeriatric co-management in a center for geriatric traumatology (CGT), effects on the course after the acute inpatient hospital treatment have been insufficiently investigated.
methodsPatients over 75 years old who needed rehabilitation following acute inpatient treatment before (retrospective, n = 90) and after (prospective, n = 99) the introduction of a certified CGT were investigated. The two groups were compared with respect to the frequency of discharge into an indication-specific (AHB) and geriatric rehabilitation, mobility performance including the five times sit-to-stand test, short physical performance battery (SPPB) and competence in activities of daily living with the Barthel index (BI).
resultsAfter introduction of a CGT 17.2% (95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: 10-25%; p < 0.027) of the patients were discharged to a specialized orthopedic inpatient rehabilitation (AHB) vs. 6.7% (95 % CI: 1-12%) before the introduction. Correspondingly less patients needed geriatric rehabilitation (before CGT 93.3 %, 95 % CI: 88.1-98.6 vs. CGT 82.8 %, 95 % CI: 75-90; p < 0.001). The overall outcome of post-acute geriatric inpatient rehabilitation improved in both groups but did not differ. Patients who needed two therapy sessions in the CGT were clearly poorer than those with one therapy session with respect to activities of daily living (BI: 34.1, 95 % CI: 30-37.2 vs. 41.2, 95 % CI: 30.9-51.4) and mobility performance (SPPB: 1.2, 95 % CI: 0.7-1.8 vs. 2.2, 95 % CI: 0.9-3.4; p = 0.048). The differences remained despite improvement of both groups during geriatric rehabilitation.
conclusionThe establishment of a CGT enables more patients to be discharged into a less cost-intensive AHB. The more intensive treatment in the CGT offers more severely affected patients the chance for further functional improvement through post-acute inpatient geriatric rehabilitation. A predominantly closing treatment of patients in a CGT is not conceivable in the CGT model presented.
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.