ArticleHRB open research2025
Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment: Protocol for a Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.
Article in HRB open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment: systematic review of economic evaluations.Age and ageing · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process focused on determining an older person's medical, psychological, and functional capabilities to inform a coordinated and integrated health plan. It is a multifactorial intervention requiring longitudinal planning and care coordination, which can utilize variable healthcare resources and have difference health outcomes. This systematic review aims to identify evidence of the cost-effectiveness of CGA in various care settings. Methods and analysis: Full economic evaluation studies (comparing both the costs and the consequences of alternatives) on CGA will be searched for in the Embase, Medline, CINAHL, CEA registry, and NHSEED databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the studies against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will include either randomized control trials or model-based economic evaluations, and the outcomes will include the mean costs and effectiveness, incremental cost, and incremental effectiveness. Reporting quality will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS-2022) checklist. Narrative summary tables and figures will be used to present the study characteristics. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review because we will only utilize publicly available economic evaluation studies rather than individual patient data. The findings of this review will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42023492586.
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.