SynthesisAging clinical and experimental research2026
Current evidence on the core components of the geriatric rehabilitation process: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Aging clinical and experimental research, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeriatric rehabilitation (GR) is a key component of integrated care for older persons with multimorbidity, yet its fundamental care process and core components that enable effective GR remain poorly defined and highly variable.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review (Registration ID: PROSPERO 2025 CRD42025642761) to identify and synthesise evidence on core components of the GR care process. Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane and Embase were searched to 31 January 2025. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled prospective cohort studies involving multimorbid geriatric patients undergoing multidisciplinary GR programmes were included. Study quality was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tool.
resultsThirty-six studies (31 RCTs and 5 controlled prospective cohort studies), comprising 10,647 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Studies represented a broad range of GR service types. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in reported care processes, including terminology, team composition, workflow, contextual factors, and assessment methods, with over 90 different tools used. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) was rarely reported, patients with moderate to severe dementia were frequently excluded, and no study described the entire GR care process in a holistic manner. DISCUSSION: Current evidence shows substantial heterogeneity and fragmentation in the description and implementation of the GR care process, with variable depth of implementation, team structures and assessments. The lack of reproducible process structures and clearly defined core components limits comparability, implementation, and evaluation.
conclusionFuture research should adopt study designs spanning the full GR pathway across settings, incorporate standardised process indicators, a toolbox of CGA and goal-setting instruments and evaluate outcomes aligned with the biopsychosocial principles of the ICF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42455279What 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.