SynthesisAge and ageing2026
Determining six-month prognosis among people with dementia living in care homes: a systematic review of prognostic tools.
Synthesis in Age and ageing, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDementia is a leading cause of death among residents in care home settings internationally. Proactive identification of those approaching end-of-life can support future care planning, respecting preferences. We aimed to synthesise existing literature on prognostic tools designed to predict 6-month mortality in individuals with dementia residing in care homes including their content and prognostic performance.
methodsA systematic review was undertaken, searching Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and MEDLINE in December 2024. Studies evaluating prognostic tools for predicting 6-month mortality in individuals with dementia living in care homes were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were extracted and narratively synthesised.
resultsThirteen studies involving 503 501 participants were included from a total of 5438 records screened. Eleven prognostic tools were identified. Only three studies were assessed at low risk of bias. Predictive factors per tool ranged from 4 to 12. Age, change in cognitive function, functional decline/dependency and concerns around nutritional intake/weight were the commonest domains of predictors across included tools. Reporting around the discriminative performance of tools was limited and only two tools (Mortality Risk Index Score and Advanced Dementia Prognostic Tool had acceptable discrimination (area under receiver operating curve >0.70), which was not replicated in validation studies.
conclusionsWhile identified predictors have clinical congruence, there is significant variability in how these are assessed and operationalised and in the application of prognostic tools. Specific prediction of mortality remains challenging and would benefit from further research to adapt and validate dynamic prognostic tools for use in practice.
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.