Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33589465›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Thomas F Crocker, Andrew Clegg, Richard D Riley, Natalie Lam, Ram Bajpai, Magda Jordão, Eleftheria Patetsini, Ridha Ramiz, Joie Ensor, Anne Forster and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Subcutaneous immunotherapy as a catalyst for decentralized, oncologist-led cancer care: a mixed-methods analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas F CrockerAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Leeds, Bradford, UK tom.crocker@bthft.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7450-3143
Andrew CleggAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Leeds, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5972-1097
Richard D RileyCentre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Natalie LamAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Leeds, Bradford, UK.
Ram BajpaiAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Leeds, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1227-2703
Magda JordãoAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Leeds, Bradford, UK.
Eleftheria PatetsiniAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Leeds, Bradford, UK.
Ridha RamizAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Leeds, Bradford, UK.
Joie EnsorCentre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Anne ForsterAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Leeds, Bradford, UK.
John R F GladmanSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
University of Leeds · GBKeele University · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR128862
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMaintaining independence is a primary goal of community health and care services for older people, but there is currently insufficient guidance about which services to implement. Therefore, we aim to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of community-based complex interventions to sustain independence for older people, including the effect of frailty, and group interventions to identify the best configurations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of community-based complex interventions to sustain independence for older people living at home (mean age ≥65 years), compared with usual care or another complex intervention. We will search MEDLINE (1946 to September 2020), Embase (1947 to September 2020), CINAHL (1981 to September 2020), PsycINFO (1806 to September 2020), CENTRAL and clinical trial registries from inception to September 2020, without date/language restrictions, and scan included papers' reference lists. Main outcomes were: living at home, activities of daily living (basic/instrumental), home-care services usage, hospitalisation, care home admission, costs and cost effectiveness. Additional outcomes were: health status, depression, loneliness, falls and mortality. Interventions will be coded, summarised and grouped. An NMA using a multivariate random-effects model for each outcome separately will determine the relative effects of different complex interventions. For each outcome, we will produce summary effect estimates for each pair of treatments in the network, with 95% CI, ranking plots and measures, and the borrowing of strength statistic. Inconsistency will be examined using a 'design-by-treatment interaction' model. We will assess risk of bias (Cochrane tool V.2) and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for NMA approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research will use aggregated, anonymised, published data. Findings will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. They will be disseminated to policy-makers, commissioners and providers, and via conferences and scientific journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019162195.

Indexed as

FrailtyHome Care ServicesAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisHospitalizationHumansNetwork Meta-Analysis as Topicclinical trialsgeriatric medicineoccupational & industrial medicinepreventive medicineprimary carerehabilitation medicine

Identifiers

PMID33589465
PMCPMC7887376
OpenAlexW3133260883

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.