ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Validation of the ICEBERG emergency room screening tool for early identification of older patients with geriatric consultation needs.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The growing number of older and oldest-old patients often present in the emergency room (ER) with undiagnosed geriatric syndromes posing them at high risk for complications in acute care. Objective: To develop and validate an ER screening tool (ICEBERG) to capture 9 geriatric domains of risk in older patients. Design setting and participants: For construct validity we performed a chart-based study in 129 ER patients age 70 years and older admitted to acute geriatric care (pilot 1). For criterion validity we performed a prospective study in 288 ER patients age 70 years and older admitted to acute care (pilot 2). Exposure: In both validation steps, the exposure was ICEBERG test performance below and above the median score (10, range 0-30). Outcome measures and analysis: In pilot 1, we compared the exposure with results of nine tests of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). In pilot 2, we compared the exposure assessed in the ER to following length of hospital stay (LOS), one-on-one nursing care needs, in-hospital mortality, 30-day re-admission rate, and discharge to a nursing home. Main results: Mean age was 82.9 years (SD 6.7; n = 129) in pilot 1, and 81.5 years (SD 7.0; n = 288) in pilot 2. In pilot 1, scoring ≥10 was associated with significantly worse performance in 8 of 9 of the individual CGA tests. In pilot 2, scoring ≥10 resulted in longer average LOS (median 7 days, IQR 4, 11 vs. 6 days, IQR 3, 8) and higher nursing care needs (median 1,838 min, IQR 901, 4,267 vs. median 1,393 min, IQR 743, 2,390). Scoring ≥10 also increased the odds of one-on-one nursing care 2.9-fold (OR 2.86, 95%CI 1.17-6.98), and the odds of discharge to a nursing home 3.7-fold (OR 3.70, 95%CI 1.74-7.85). Further, scoring ≥10 was associated with higher in-hospital mortality and re-hospitalization rates, however not reaching statistical significance. Average time to complete the ICEBERG tool was 4.3 min (SD 1.3). Conclusion: Our validation studies support construct validity of the ICEBERG tool with the CGA, and criterion validity with several clinical indicators in acute care.
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.