Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35486670›Full record

SynthesisAge and ageing2022

Effectiveness of acute geriatric unit care on functional decline, clinical and process outcomes among hospitalised older adults with acute medical complaints: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Íde O'Shaughnessy, Katie Robinson, Margaret O'Connor, Mairéad Conneely, Damien Ryan, Fiona Steed, Leonora Carey, Aoife Leahy, Elaine Shanahan, Colin Quinn and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Íde O'ShaughnessySchool of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Ageing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Katie RobinsonSchool of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Ageing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Margaret O'ConnorDepartment of Ageing and Therapeutics, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Mairéad ConneelySchool of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Ageing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Damien RyanSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Fiona SteedMedicine Directorate, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Leonora CareyDepartment of Occupational Therapy, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Aoife LeahyDepartment of Ageing and Therapeutics, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Elaine ShanahanDepartment of Ageing and Therapeutics, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Colin QuinnDepartment of Ageing and Therapeutics, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Rose GalvinSchool of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Ageing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
University Hospital Limerick · IEUniversity of Limerick · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundthe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to update and synthesise the totality of research evidence on the effectiveness of acute geriatric unit (AGU) care for older adults admitted to hospital with acute medical complaints.

methodsMEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Embase databases were systematically searched from 2008 to February 2022. Screening, data extraction and quality grading were undertaken by two reviewers. Only trials with a randomised design comparing AGU care and conventional care units were included. Meta-analyses were performed in Review Manager 5.4 and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was incidence of functional decline between baseline 2-week prehospital admission status and discharge and at follow-up.

results11 trials recruiting 7,496 participants across three countries were included. AGU care resulted in a reduction in functional decline at 6-month follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.93; moderate certainty evidence) and an increased probability of living at home at 3-month follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99-1.13; high certainty evidence). AGU care resulted in little or no difference in functional decline at hospital discharge or at 3-month follow-up, length of hospital stay, costs, the probability of living at home at discharge, mortality, hospital readmission, cognitive function or patient satisfaction.

conclusionsAGU care improves clinical and process outcomes for hospitalised older adults with acute medical complaints. Future research should focus on greater inclusion of clinical and patient reported outcome measures.

Indexed as

HospitalizationPatient DischargeAgedCritical CareHumansLength of StayPatient Readmissionacute geriatric unitcomprehensive geriatric assessmentfunctional declinemeta-analysisolder adults

Identifiers

PMID35486670
PMCPMC9053463
OpenAlexW4225135457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.