ReviewHealth economics review2026
Cost effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment: a systematic review.
Review in Health economics review, 2026. 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.
- Mapping Geriatric Medicine education in Portuguese medical schools.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is crucial from a clinical point of view for frail older patients, permitting tailored interventions that may address specific needs. In addition to its clinical significance, understanding the economic value of CGA is also essential. Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly conducted to evaluate health interventions, but the literature about CGA is still limited, and no comprehensive overview is currently available. The aim of our study is therefore to systematically review economic evaluations of CGA, including both cost analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses, to provide the most complete overview of the available evidence.
methodsWe searched several databases from database inception to 01st January 2025. We included studies that reported costs and/or cost-effectiveness of CGA compared to usual care. The characteristics and results of included studies were summarized using a narrative summary that compared and evaluated the methods used and the principal results among studies.
findingsAmong 3,839 articles initially screened, 36 studies with a total of 68,186 older people (mean age: 79 years old) followed on average for two years were included. Overall, 17 studies evaluated cost analysis, with 13 studies with lower cost in CGA group and 4 studies with higher cost. Similarly, 19 studies evaluated cost-effectiveness, among these 12 had Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) as outcome of which seven were dominant (lower costs for better health outcomes), and two were cost-effective. Finally, 7 studies assessed other outcomes than QALYs, with dominance achieved in five of them.
conclusionCGA appears to have the potential to be cost-effective in several settings, with many studies reporting favorable economic outcomes. Overall, CGA shows promise as an effective and cost-effective intervention, but further research with longer follow-up and a broader range of economic models is needed to fully assess its economic value.
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.