Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35778707›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2022

Decision support-tools for early detection of infection in older people (aged> 65 years): a scoping review.

Olga Masot, Anna Cox, Freda Mold, Märtha Sund-Levander, Pia Tingström, Geertien Christelle Boersema, Teresa Botigué, Julie Daltrey, Karen Hughes, Christopher B Mayhorn and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Olga MasotDepartment of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain. olga.masot@udl.cat.
Anna CoxSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7YH, UK.
Freda MoldSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7YH, UK.
Märtha Sund-LevanderDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Pia TingströmDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Geertien Christelle BoersemaDepartment of Health Studies, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
Teresa BotiguéDepartment of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain.
Julie DaltreySchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Karen HughesSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7YH, UK.
Christopher B MayhornDepartment of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7801, USA.
Amy MontgomerySchool of Nursing, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia.
Judy MullanSchool of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia.
Nicola CareyDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, University of the Highlands and Islands, Inverness, IV2 3JH, UK.
University of Surrey · GBLinköping University · SEUniversitat de Lleida · ESUniversity of Wollongong · AUNorth Carolina State University · USUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of South Africa · ZAUniversity of the Highlands and Islands · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfection is more frequent, and serious in people aged > 65 as they experience non-specific signs and symptoms delaying diagnosis and prompt treatment. Monitoring signs and symptoms using decision support tools (DST) is one approach that could help improve early detection ensuring timely treatment and effective care.

objectiveTo identify and analyse decision support tools available to support detection of infection in older people (> 65 years).

methodsA scoping review of the literature 2010-2021 following Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO using terms to identify decision support tools for detection of infection in people > 65 years was conducted, supplemented with manual searches.

resultsSeventeen papers, reporting varying stages of development of different DSTs were analysed. DSTs largely focussed on specific types of infection i.e. urine, respiratory, sepsis and were frequently hospital based (n = 9) for use by physicians. Four DSTs had been developed in nursing homes and one a care home, two of which explored detection of non- specific infection.

conclusionsDSTs provide an opportunity to ensure a consistent approach to early detection of infection supporting prompt action and treatment, thus avoiding emergency hospital admissions. A lack of consideration regarding their implementation in practice means that any attempt to create an optimal validated and tested DST for infection detection will be impeded. This absence may ultimately affect the ability of the workforce to provide more effective and timely care, particularly during the current covid-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19SepsisAgedDietary SupplementsEarly DiagnosisHumansPandemicsDecision support toolsDetectionInfectionOlder adultsSigns and symptoms

Identifiers

PMID35778707
PMCPMC9247966
OpenAlexW4283749111

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.