ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Positive predictive value of Dutch Elder Abuse Scale (ERASE): an early warning tool for elder abuse in the emergency department and geriatric outpatient setting.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElder abuse (EA) is a worldwide problem with serious consequences for individuals and society. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of EA and positive predictive value (PPV) of the Dutch Elder Abuse Scale (ERASE), an early warning tool for EA in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) or geriatric outpatient clinic (GOC) in hospitals in the Netherlands.
methodsThree general peripheral hospitals in the Netherlands participated. The study population were subsequent patients aged 70 years and older who visited the ED or GOC. Healthcare professionals (nurses/physicians) working at the hospital's ED and GOC administered ERASE. In case of suspected EA, the case was assessed in a standardized manner in the EA multidisciplinary team meeting (EA-MDTM) by independent experts. This assessment was considered the reference test. All data were quantitatively descriptively analyzed. To test ERASE for its performance in clinical practice, the PPV was determined. Also the prevalence of EA in the (acute) hospital setting was determined.
resultsIn the inclusion period 22924 patients aged 70 years and older visited the ED or GOC. In almost half of these patients ERASE was administered by healthcare professionals of the three hospitals. In total 202 (1.8% (95% CI: [1.5%; 2.0%]) patients had a positive score on ERASE and were subsequently discussed in the EA-MDTM. In total 54 patients were concluded to have been a victim of EA according to the EA-MDTM. The total prevalence of EA in patients aged 70 years and older, visiting the ED or GOC, based on the conclusion of the EA-MDTM of the hospital working group on domestic violence, was 0.5% (95% CI: [0.35%; 0.62%]. The PPV of ERASE was 28% (95% CI: [0.20%; 0.35%].
conclusionsAlthough the PPV of ERASE was not high, the tool may help detect signs of EA in the ED or GOC. Subsequently further investigation is required to substantiate or reject the diagnosis of EA. An EA-MDTM where a case is discussed in a standardized manner can aid in that perspective.
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.