SynthesisBMC geriatrics2026
Effectiveness of transitional care program in older adults with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure leads to adverse clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Its prevalence has increased markedly among adults aged 60 years and over. Transitional care interventions are recommended to address these issues; however, their effectiveness on health outcomes, particularly in older adults, remains limited and inconclusive.
methodsThis study aimed to systematically review and synthesise the existing evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of transitional care interventions on health outcomes among older adults with heart failure. Only randomised controlled trials were included. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration methodology and were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies from 2001 to the present were identified through searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus with full text. Risk ratios, mean differences, and standardised mean differences were calculated. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I
resultsEight studies with 967 subjects (483 in the intervention group and 484 in the control group) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Transitional care interventions were associated with improvements in self-care confidence and reductions in heart failure-specific readmission. There were no statistically significant effects on self-care maintenance, self-care management, or heart failure knowledge. Findings for health-related quality of life, functional status, and event-free survival varied across studies. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate.
conclusionsTransitional care interventions were associated with improved self-care confidence and reduced heart failure-specific readmissions in older adults with heart failure. However, variations in the certainty of the evidence create uncertainty about the intervention's effect. The limited number of trials included in this review demonstrates an evidence gap in this area. Further high-quality studies with transparent reporting through prospective trial registration should be conducted to determine the optimal content of the transitional care intervention. REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42021229464). CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.