Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38797797›Full record

GuidelineAging clinical and experimental research2024

The Italian guideline on comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for the older persons: a collaborative work of 25 Italian Scientific Societies and the National Institute of Health.

Alberto Pilotto, Pierangelo Lora Aprile, Nicola Veronese, Eleonora Lacorte, Wanda Morganti, Carlo Custodero, Paola Piscopo, Elisa Fabrizi, Francesco Della Gatta, Andrea Merlo and 1 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline 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 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Frailty: the ideal target for prevention?European geriatric medicine · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Alberto PilottoDepartment of Geriatric Care, Neurology and Rehabilitation, Galliera Hospitals, Genoa, Italy.
Pierangelo Lora AprileItalian College of General Practitioners and Primary Care, Florence, Italy.
Nicola VeroneseDepartment of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. nicola.veronese@unipa.it.
Eleonora LacorteNational Center for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Italian National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Wanda MorgantiDepartment of Geriatric Care, Neurology and Rehabilitation, Galliera Hospitals, Genoa, Italy.
Carlo CustoderoDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, "Aldo Moro" University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Paola PiscopoNational Center for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Italian National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Elisa FabriziNational Center for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Italian National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Francesco Della GattaDepartment of Neuroscience, Mental Health and Sense Organs (NESMOS), Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Andrea MerloOrder of Nursing Professions of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Nicola VanacoreNational Center for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Italian National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe guideline was promoted by the Italian General Practitioners-Primary Care and Geriatrics Hospital-Community Societies and was carried out involving the National Institute of Health and an Expert Panel including representatives from 25 Scientific and Health-Professional Organizations. The aim of the Guideline was to develop evidence-based recommendations on the efficacy of CGA in older people across different clinical settings and the accuracy and utility of CGA-based tools to assess prognosis.

methodsAccording to the methodological handbook of the Italian National System of Guidelines and NICE criteria (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England), the Guideline was produced based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Over 20,000 records gathered through databases searches were initially selected. Sixteen recommendations on CGA efficacy were defined based on 117 studies that met the inclusion criteria and were performed in general practices and primary care (26 studies included), medical and surgical clinics (16 studies), emergency departments (17 studies), hospital medical and surgical wards (53 studies), long-term care facilities and nursing homes (5 studies), hospices and palliative care networks (no studies). Nine recommendations on CGA-based prognostic tools were issues based on 42 included studies carried out in general practices and primary care (5 studies), medical and surgical clinics (4 studies), and hospital wards (33 studies).

resultsUsing CGA can be useful to reduce hospitalization, mortality, institutionalization, the risk of delirium, and improve appropriateness in drug prescription and maintain functional activities in different settings. Further research on the efficacy of CGA in rehabilitative facilities, nursing homes, and hospice and palliative-care settings is recommended. CGA-based tools, particularly the Multidimensional Prognostic Index, should be used to predict some negative outcomes in different settings.

conclusionsThis Guideline may be useful in clinical practice and as a tool to support research on the use of CGA in older people.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentAgedAged, 80 and overHumansItalySocieties, ScientificComprehensive geriatric assessmentGuidelineMeta-analysisMultidimensional prognostic indexSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38797797
PMCPMC11128394

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.