ArticleBMJ open2025
Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in primary healthcare: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Structured Clinical Tools for Periodic Health Assessment of Older Adults in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2025Review
- Resilience and Intrinsic Capacity in Older Adults: A Review of Recent Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compile and compare the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) models that exist worldwide and their applicability in primary healthcare (PHC).
introductionThe world's population is ageing rapidly, but health systems are slow to keep up with this trend, making it difficult to provide care for older adults. The broad concept of frailty has prompted a comprehensive and holistic approach to patients, where the assessment is related not only to functional, physical and cognitive abilities of the older adults, but also their social, environmental and economic context. In recent decades, the approach to frailty has taken the CGA as the gold standard. With this project, we intend to carry out a scoping review to identify and describe tools to help standardise and generalise CGA in PHC. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Individuals aged 65 years or over; CGA in a PHC setting; the CGA methods reported must include at least three domains: physical, cognitive and social; Articles without language restrictions; Articles published in the last 30 years.
methodsAll studies that refer to CGA models and fulfil the inclusion criteria will be selected. A bibliographic search of articles will be carried out using the following electronic scientific publication databases: MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. We will search for grey literature on sites such as 'OpenGrey' and thesis repositories such as RCAAP, EBSCO and EThOS, as well as on the WHO pages. The articles will be independently selected by two reviewers, and the data will be presented in narrative format, structured according to the objective, focus and question of the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the ethics committee of the regional health administration of the centre, registered as Project 11/2024 and approved on 8 May 2024. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and national or international conference presentations. Updates of the review will be conducted, as necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/REH43).
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.