ArticleGeroScience2026
Short communication and clear content of geriatric recommendations matter! Evaluation of geriatric recommendation acceptance in patients aged ≥ 85 years hospitalized for cardiac conditions.
Article in GeroScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As patients with cardiovascular disease age, the need for cardiogeriatric care grows. Therefore, we aimed to identify facilitators and hindrances to the implementation of cardiogeriatric care by analysing geriatric recommendations content and acceptance rates. This retrospective cohort study included 100 patients aged > 85 years who received geriatric consultation and were admitted to a cardiology department. A random sample was generated, of which half received proactive geriatric consultation and half received usual care (geriatric consultation upon request). The recommendation content was categorized into geriatric domains (physical, mental, functional, social, and existential), and recommendation uptake was categorized into seven categories (e.g., accepted, declined by patient). Additionally, factors associated with acceptance rates were analysed using univariate logistic regression. The study population (mean age 88, 60% female) received 310 recommendations of which 56% were accepted. The acceptance rate was significantly higher if recommendations belonged to the functional (OR 3.10 (95% CI 1.41-6.82)), social (OR 5.55 (95% CI 2.40-13.00)), and existential domain (OR 6.09 (95% CI 2.62-14.16)) compared to the physical domain. Furthermore, higher acceptance rates were observed if recommendations were communicated verbally instead of electronically (OR 2.16 (95% CI 1.30-6.70)), when a clear tone was used instead of a doubtful one (OR 1.90 (95% CI 1.01-3.56)), and if the recommendation was concisely documented (OR 1.11 (95% CI 1.04-1.20) per average 10 words decrease). In this study, the acceptance rate of geriatric recommendations for older patients with cardiac disease was low. Recommendations regarding the functional, social, and existential domains had the highest acceptance rates. To improve acceptance rates, recommendations should be communicated verbally, documented concisely, and a doubtful tone should be avoided.
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.