ArticlePloS one2025
Geriatric assessment domains as predictors for clinical endpoints in older adults with cancer: Protocol for an updated systematic review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of Decision-Making for Older Patients with Cancer Receiving Systemic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geriatric assessments (GA) are increasingly used to inform treatment decision making and tailoring supportive care for older adults with cancer. Identifying which domains predict clinically relevant outcomes might be particularly useful for risk stratification in settings where a GA is not available and/or feasible. The objective of this updated systematic review is to evaluate individual GA domains as predictors for mortality and treatment-related outcomes. Eligible studies will be identified using a predefined search strategy developed in collaboration with an expert librarian in electronic databases (Medline, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL) and comprise peer-reviewed papers published in any language from July 2017 and reporting on the prospective association between individual GA domains and mortality as well as surgical- or systemic treatment-related outcomes in older adults with cancer. All title/abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction will be performed independently by at least 2 authors. Information on cut-offs of GA domains will also be extracted to assess for variability across studies. A decision on performing a meta-analysis versus a narrative summary will be made based on predetermined criteria, which will include heterogeneity among studies and variability in GA tools and cutoff used for each individual domain, as well as level of risk of bias. If a meta-analysis is indicated, a random effects meta-analysis will be conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. The review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024580404). This review seeks to investigate individual GA domains as predictors for patient- and treatment-related outcomes. Findings may inform efforts on optimizing GA for this 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.