Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38441748›Full record

ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2024

Towards a core outcome set (COS) for intrinsic capacity (IC) intervention studies in adults in midlife and beyond: a scoping review to identify frequently used outcomes and measurement tools.

Dolores Sanchez-Rodriguez, Olivier Bruyère, Murielle Surquin, Jean-Yves Reginster, Charlotte Beaudart

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dolores Sanchez-RodriguezGeriatrics Department, Brugmann University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. DoloresMaria.SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ@chu-brugmann.be.
Olivier BruyèreWHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculo-Skeletal Health and Ageing, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Murielle SurquinGeriatrics Department, Brugmann University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Jean-Yves ReginsterWHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculo-Skeletal Health and Ageing, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Charlotte BeaudartWHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculo-Skeletal Health and Ageing, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
University of Liège · BEUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review was conducted to identify the outcomes and measurement tools used in IC intervention studies, as first step towards the development of a core outcome set (COS) for IC trials. PRISMA-ScR and COS-STAD were followed. The review considered randomized controlled trials targeting IC published in Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov, until June 2023. Of 699 references, 534 studies were screened once duplicates were removed, 15 were assessed for eligibility, and 7 (4 articles and 3 protocols) met eligibility criteria. Twenty-eight outcomes were identified (19 related to IC and its domains and 9 unrelated). The most reported primary outcome was the change in IC levels postintervention (5 over 7 studies) and the most reported outcomes (either as primary and/or secondary) were the changes in physical performance and in depressive symptoms (6 over 7 studies). Fifty-five tools used to construct the domains' z-scores and/or assess the effect of interventions were identified (47 related to IC and its domains and 8 unrelated). The most reported tool was an IC Z-score, calculated by 4 domains' z-scores: locomotor, vitality, cognitive, and psychological (5 over 7 studies). The tools differed among studies (10 locomotor related, 6 vitality related, 16 cognitive related, 8 psychological related, 6 sensorial related, 8 unrelated tools). The vast heterogeneity (28 outcomes and 55 tools within 7 studies) highlighted the need of a COS. These outcomes and tools will be presented to experts in a future step, to select the ones that should be taken into consideration in IC trials.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CarePhysical Functional PerformanceHumansCore outcome setICOPEIntrinsic capacityOlder peopleScoping review

Identifiers

PMID38441748
PMCPMC10914863
OpenAlexW4392466455

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.