ReviewCancers2022
Exploring Cost-Effectiveness of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Geriatric Oncology: A Narrative Review.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- The value and effectiveness of geriatric assessments for older adults with cancer: an umbrella review.BMC geriatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Geriatric assessment with management for older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy: a cluster-randomised controlled pilot study.BMC medicine · 2024Trial
- Turkish Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the BRIEF-MPI in Older Adults with Cancer: Convergent and Discriminative Validity Compared with the G8 and Clinical Frailty Scale.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Older patients with lymphoma: navigating a landscape of clinical controversies and barriers to innovation.Haematologica · 2026Review
- Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment: Addressing Unmet Healthcare Needs in Older Adults.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Beyond Treatment Decisions: The Predictive Value of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Older Cancer Patients.Cancers · 2025Article
- Setting Up Geriatric Oncology Clinical Services: Asian Geriatric Oncology Society Guidelines 2025 (Part 1).South Asian journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- The Five "Ws" of Frailty Assessment and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Who, What, Where, Why, and When.Cancers · 2023Review
- Geriatric assessment for older people with cancer: policy recommendations.Global health research and policy · 2023Article
- Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in "Special" NSCLC Populations: A Viable Approach?International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Older adults and the unique role of the radiation therapist: Future directions for improving geriatric oncology training and education.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.