SynthesisBMC geriatrics2025
The effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment intervention for older people in outpatient setting: a systematic review / meta-analysis.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Depression-Related Nutritional Risk and Physical Performance in Middle- to Older-Aged Adults: Cross-Sectional Secondary Analysis of Tree-Based and Regression Approaches.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Conditions identified by common comprehensive geriatric assessment measures and subsequent acute care among adults with SLE.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for Obesity in Older Women: Maximizing Weight Loss While Preserving Lean Mass.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Geriatric Interdisciplinary Team Care Model: An Integrated Model for Older Adults.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidisciplinary diagnostic and treatment process that identifies a frail older person's medical, psychosocial, and functional limitations. The effectiveness of CGA in patients admitted to hospitals is well known, but it is still unclear whether those benefits translate to the outpatient setting. Therefore, this study aims to assess the effectiveness of CGA in the hospital outpatient setting.
methodsWe collected randomized clinical trials comparing CGA and usual care in the outpatient setting for older patients (aged 60 years and above). We used a combination of the keywords and their synonyms in several databases: PubMed, EMBASE Proquest, and the clinical trial registry. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was done using RoB 2 from Cochrane. GRADE assessment for outcome mortality and hospitalization was also done.
resultWe found seven articles with a total of 3,254 subjects undergoing CGA in the outpatient clinic. The implementation of CGA is highly varied from center to center. Low-quality evidence demonstrated that CGA did not significantly affect all-cause mortality, patient satisfaction, hospitalization, functional status of basic and instrumental activities of daily living, cognitive, and cost. Very low-quality evidence showed favorable quality of life in CGA group at 3 and 12 months, as reported by individual studies. No difference was found in all studies relating to the risk of hospitalization.
conclusionCGA is a complex intervention and is highly dependent on context. Therefore, a robust conclusion is challenging to make due to the different practices and measurement tools used in the studies. Further research using a guideline for hospital outpatient CGA may be beneficial.
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.