Trial reportCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2021
Use of standardized brief geriatric evaluation compared with routine care in general practice for preventing functional decline: a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial.
Trial report in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02618291 (Efficacy of a an Active Geriatric Evaluation), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Efficacy of a an Active Geriatric Evaluation (AGE Tool) for Geriatric Syndromes to Prevent Functional Decline in Elderly Patients in Family Medicine: a Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management in primary care: a systematic literature review with a descriptive mapping of team composition and assessment instruments.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Application and implementation of brief geriatric assessment in primary care and community settings: a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough assessment of geriatric syndromes is increasingly encouraged in older adults, little evidence exists to support its systematic use by general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this study was to determine whether a systematic geriatric evaluation performed by GPs can prevent functional decline.
methodsWe conducted a controlled, open-label, pragmatic cluster-randomized trial in 42 general practices in Switzerland. Participating GPs were expected to enrol an average of 10 community-dwelling adults (aged ≥ 75 yr) who understood French, and had visited their GP at least twice in the previous year. The intervention consisted of yearly assessment by the GP of 8 geriatric syndromes with an associated tailored management plan according to assessment results, compared with routine care. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who lost at least 1 instrumental activity of daily living (ADL) and the proportion who lost at least 1 basic ADL, over 2 years. Our secondary outcomes were quality-of-life scores, measured using the older adult module of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument, and health care use.
resultsForty-two GPs recruited 429 participants (63% women) with a mean age of 82.5 years (standard deviation 4.8 yr) at time of recruitment. Of these, we randomly assigned 217 participants to the intervention and 212 to the control arm. The proportion of patients who lost at least 1 instrumental ADL in the intervention and control arms during the course of the study was 43.6% and 47.6%, respectively (risk difference -4.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -14.9% to 6.7%,
interpretationA yearly geriatric evaluation with an associated management plan, conducted systematically in GP practices, does not significantly lessen functional decline among community-dwelling, older adult patients, compared with routine care.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02618291.
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.