SynthesisCritical care explorations2024
Critically Ill Older Adults' Representation in Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Critical care explorations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and representation of comorbidities and multimorbidity in randomised controlled trials in sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- ESICM consensus-based recommendations for the management of very old patients in intensive care.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOlder adults may be under-represented in critical care research, and results may not apply to this specific population. Our primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of inclusion of older adults across critical care trials focused on common ICU conditions or interventions. Our secondary objective was to evaluate whether older age was used as a stratification variable for randomization or outcome analysis. DESIGN SETTING AND SUBJECTS: We performed a systematic review of previously published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care. We searched PubMed, Ovid, CENTRAL, and Cochrane from 2009 to 2022. Systematic reviews of any interventions across five topics: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis/shock, nutrition, sedation, and mobilization were eligible. MAIN
resultsWe identified 216 systematic reviews and included a total of 253 RCTs and 113,090 patients. We extracted baseline characteristics and the reported proportion of older adults. We assessed whether any upper age limit was an exclusion criterion for trials, whether age was used for stratification during randomization or data analysis, and if age-specific subgroup analysis was present. The most prevalent topic was sepsis (78 trials, 31%), followed by nutrition (62 trials, 25%), ARDS (39 trials, 15%), mobilization (38 trials, 15%), and sedation (36 trials, 14%). Eighteen trials (7%) had exclusion criteria based on older age. Age distribution with information on older adults prevalence was given in six trials (2%). Age was considered in the analysis of ten trials (5%) using analytic methods to evaluate the outcome stratified by age. Conclusions: In this systematic review, the proportion of older critically ill patients is undetermined, and it is unclear how age is or is not an effect modifier or to what extent the results are valid for older adult groups. Reporting age is important to guide clinicians in personalizing care. These results highlight the importance of incorporating older critically ill patients in future trials to ensure the results are generalizable to this growing population.
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.