ReviewHealth science reports2025
Structured Clinical Tools for Periodic Health Assessment of Older Adults in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.
Review in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Structured Clinical Tools for Periodic Health Assessment of Older Adults in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 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
Background and Aims: Delivering preventive care to older adults presents challenges due to the lack of consensus on screening items, particularly regarding geriatric syndromes. Furthermore, chronological age often differs from biological age, which requires primary care clinicians (PCCs) to assess each patient's aging profile and tailor preventive interventions accordingly. Periodic Health Assessments (PHAs) offer an opportunity to administer preventive care. While several authors have developed Structured Clinical Tools (SCTs) to assist clinicians during PHAs, no SCT is widely used across clinicians. The study aims to identify existing SCTs for the PHA of older adults and evaluate their content, formats, and practical usability. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the 6-step methodology recommended by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and Levac (2010). We searched in PubMed, CINAHL, and Ageline, as well as in the grey literature, using keywords related to four main concepts: older adults, primary care, periodic health assessment, and SCT. We retrieved SCTs published in French and English between 2000 and 2024. Data were screened and charted by two independent reviewers. For step six (consultation), we gathered opinions of 10 PCCs on the practical usability of different SCTs. Results: Among the 8029 identified publications, we retrieved 16 distinct SCTs. Design objectives and conception processes of these SCTs varied. They were presented in various formats, including questionnaires, tables, schemas, checklists, acronyms, and mnemonics. While all SCTs addressed geriatric syndromes, only two adapted their recommendations to patients' aging profiles. Consulted PCCs emphasized that an ideal SCT should be integrated into an electronic health record, accommodate various aging profiles, and rely on evidence-based medicine. Conclusions: A reliable and user-friendly SCT for the PHA of older adults would facilitate the delivery of preventive care. However, no published SCTs to date meet the expectations of PCCs. Further research is necessary to develop one.
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.