Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35805005›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Exploring Cost-Effectiveness of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Geriatric Oncology: A Narrative Review.

Sara Zuccarino, Fiammetta Monacelli, Rachele Antognoli, Alessio Nencioni, Fabio Monzani, Francesca Ferrè, Chiara Seghieri, Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sara ZuccarinoManagement and Health Laboratory, Institute of Management-Department Embeds, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, 56127 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2599-8324
Fiammetta MonacelliDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DIMI), Università di Genova, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Rachele AntognoliGeriatrics Unit, Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, Pisa University Hospital, 56126 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7865-2266
Alessio NencioniDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DIMI), Università di Genova, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Fabio MonzaniGeriatrics Unit, Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, Pisa University Hospital, 56126 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1676-098X
Francesca FerrèManagement and Health Laboratory, Institute of Management-Department Embeds, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, 56127 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5781-517X
Chiara SeghieriManagement and Health Laboratory, Institute of Management-Department Embeds, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, 56127 Pisa, Italy.
Raffaele Antonelli IncalziUnit of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Campus Bio-Medico di Roma University, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · ITOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · IT

Funding

Italian Association for Cancer Research IG#22098Ministero della Salute PE-2016-02362694Ministero della Salute PE-2016-02363073
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) and the corresponding geriatric interventions are beneficial for community-dwelling older persons in terms of reduced mortality, disability, institutionalisation and healthcare utilisation. However, the value of CGA in the management of older cancer patients both in terms of clinical outcomes and in cost-effectiveness remains to be fully established, and CGA is still far from being routinely implemented in geriatric oncology. This narrative review aims to analyse the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CGA adopted in geriatric oncology, identify the relevant parameters used in the literature and provide recommendations for future research. The review was conducted using the PubMed and Cochrane databases, covering published studies without selection by the publication year. The extracted data were categorised according to the study design, participants and measures of cost-effectiveness, and the results are summarised to state the levels of evidence. The review conforms to the SANRA guidelines for quality assessment. Twenty-nine studies out of the thirty-seven assessed for eligibility met the inclusion criteria. Although there is a large heterogeneity, the overall evidence is consistent with the measurable benefits of CGA in terms of reducing the in-hospital length of stay and treatment toxicity, leaning toward a positive cost-effectiveness of the interventions and supporting CGA implementation in geriatric oncology clinical practice. More research employing full economic evaluations is needed to confirm this evidence and should focus on CGA implications both from patient-centred and healthcare system perspectives.

Indexed as

CGAcost-effectivenessgeriatric oncologyolder adults

Identifiers

PMID35805005
PMCPMC9265029
OpenAlexW4283760658

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.