Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35377322›Full record

ReviewJMIR aging2022

The Effectiveness of Assistive Technologies for Older Adults and the Influence of Frailty: Systematic Literature Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Marina Liselotte Fotteler, Viktoria Mühlbauer, Simone Brefka, Sarah Mayer, Brigitte Kohn, Felix Holl, Walter Swoboda, Petra Gaugisch, Beate Risch, Michael Denkinger and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

11 authors.

Marina Liselotte FottelerDigiHealth Institute, Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Neu-Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1225-1857
Viktoria MühlbauerDigiHealth Institute, Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Neu-Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7358-4073
Simone BrefkaResearch Unit on Ageing, Agaplesion Bethesda Clinic Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6121-2117
Sarah MayerResearch Unit on Ageing, Agaplesion Bethesda Clinic Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9667-1794
Brigitte KohnResearch Unit on Ageing, Agaplesion Bethesda Clinic Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8825-6198
Felix HollDigiHealth Institute, Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Neu-Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4020-9509
Walter SwobodaDigiHealth Institute, Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Neu-Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3836-311X
Petra GaugischFraunhofer-Institute for Industrial Engineering, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0195-8328
Beate RischFraunhofer-Institute for Industrial Engineering, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1320-7994
Michael Denkinger *Research Unit on Ageing, Agaplesion Bethesda Clinic Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8097-060X
Dhayana Dallmeier *Research Unit on Ageing, Agaplesion Bethesda Clinic Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3665-7023

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of assistive technologies (ATs) to support older people has been fueled by the demographic change and technological progress in many countries. These devices are designed to assist seniors, enable independent living at home or in residential facilities, and improve quality of life by addressing age-related difficulties.

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ATs on relevant outcomes with a focus on frail older adults.

methodsA systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials evaluating ATs was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, SocIndex, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and IEEEXplore databases were searched from January 1, 2009, to March 15, 2019. ATs were included when aiming to support the domains autonomy, communication, or safety of older people with a mean age ≥65 years. Trials performed within a laboratory setting were excluded. Studies were retrospectively categorized according to the physical frailty status of participants.

resultsA total of 19 trials with a high level of heterogeneity were included in the analysis. Six device categories were identified: mobility, personal disease management, medication, mental support, hearing, and vision. Eight trials showed significant effectiveness in all or some of the primary outcome measures. Personal disease management devices seem to be the most effective, with four out of five studies showing significant improvement of disease-related outcomes. Frailty could only be assessed for seven trials. Studies including participants with significant or severe impairment showed no effectiveness.

conclusionsDifferent ATs show some promising results in well-functioning but not in frail older adults, suggesting that the evaluated ATs might not (yet) be suitable for this subgroup. The uncertainty of the effectiveness of ATs and the lack of high-quality research for many promising supportive devices were confirmed in this systematic review. Large studies, also including frail older adults, and clear standards are needed in the future to guide professionals, older users, and their relatives.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42019130249; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=130249.

Indexed as

assistive technologyfrailtyolder adultssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35377322
PMCPMC9016506

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.