Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40217136›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2025

A systematic review on the efficacy of artificial intelligence in geriatric healthcare: a critical analysis of current literature.

Rangraze Imran, Shehla Shafi Khan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Rangraze ImranDepartment of Internal Medicine, RAKMHSU, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE. imranrashid@rakmhsu.ac.ae.
Shehla Shafi KhanDepartment of Psychiatry, RAKMHSU, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo carry out systematic analysis of existing literature on role of Artificial Intelligence in geriatric patient healthcare.

methodsA detailed online search was carried out using search phrases in reliable sources of information like Pubmed database, Embase database, Ovid database, Global Health database, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Study specific information was gathered, including the organisation, year of publication, nation, setting, design of the research, information about population, size of study sample, group dynamics, eligibility and exclusion requirements, information about intervention, duration of exposure to the intervention , comparators, details of outcome measures, scheduling of evaluations, and consequences. After information gathering, the reviewers gathered to discuss any differences.

resultsThirty-one studies were finally selected for systemic review. Although there was some disagreement on the acceptance of AI-enhanced treatments in LTC settings, this review indicated that there was little consensus about the efficacy of those initiatives for older individuals. Social robots have been shown to increase social interaction and mood, but the data was more conflicting and less definitive for the other innovations and consequences. The majority of research evaluated a variety of results, which made it impossible to synthesise them in a meaningful way and prevented a meta-analysis. In addition, many studies have moderate to severe bias risks due to underpowered design

conclusionIt is challenging to determine whether AI supplemented technologies for geriatric patients are significantly beneficial. Although some encouraging findings were made, more study is required.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareGeriatricsHealth Services for the AgedAgedHumansAIGeneral healthcareGeriatric patients

Identifiers

PMID40217136
PMCPMC11992734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.