SynthesisBMC geriatrics2023
Temporal changes in characteristics and external validity of randomized controlled trials in older people from 2012 to 2019.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emotion-focused therapy and forgiveness in the older population: Protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2026Article
- Exclusion criteria in clinical trials of treatments for neuropathic pain: a systematic analysis.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A qualitative study regarding older people's goals of care in relation to frailty status: finding meaning in 'smaller things' in life.Age and ageing · 2025Article
- Older people's goals of care in relation to frailty status-the COOP-study.Age and ageing · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOlder individuals are often underrepresented in clinical trials. In 2012 only 7% of RCT's specifically studied older people and their geriatric characteristics were poorly reported. The aim of this review was to investigate temporal changes in characteristics and external validity of randomized controlled trials in older people from 2012 to 2019.
methodsPubMed was searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in 2019. Firstly, the proportion of RCTs specially designed for older people were determined by the following criteria: a reported mean age of ≥ 70 years or a lower age cutoff of ≥ 55. Secondly, the trials with a majority of older people, defined by a reported mean age of ≥ 60 years, were screened for reporting of geriatric assessments. Both parts were compared with identical reviews performed in 2012.
resultsFrom a 10% random sample, 1446 RCTs were included in this systematic review. First, 8% of trials were specifically designed for older people in 2019 compared to 7% in 2012. Secondly, 25% of the trials included a majority of older people in 2019, compared to 22% in 2012. Thirdly, in 52% of these trials in 2019 one or more of the geriatric assessments were reported compared to 34% in 2012.
conclusionsAlthough in 2019 the proportion of published RCTs specifically designed for older people remains low, more characteristics on geriatric assessments were reported compared to 2012. Continued efforts should be paid to increase both the number and the validity of trials for older people.
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.