ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2026
[Long lie: development of a definition using the Delphi method].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe term "long lie" is frequently used in German-speaking countries although no standardized national or international definition currently exists. Given the high prevalence of long lies among older adults and the significant effects for those affected, a definition is necessary. The aim of this study is to develop a standardized German language definition of the term long lie in older adults.
methodsIn a three-round Delphi study 50 experts from various professions evaluated key components of the term in relation to their relevance. The consensus criteria were defined as a minimum agreement rate of 75% and an interquartile range of ≤ 1. Characteristics that met these criteria were carried over to the next round and integrated into the final definition.
resultsIn the final round 77.6% of the experts approved the definition. The interquartile ranges for all assessed components were consistently ≤ 1. There was consensus regarding the components of acute impaired mobility, the inability to free oneself, the resulting loss of control, the traumatic experience and the multidimensional effects. Disagreement existed regarding the significance of a temporal component as well as the prioritization of physical effects in comparison to psychological and emotional effects.
conclusionA consensus-based definition of long lies in older adults has been developed. The results also show interprofessional differences in the assessment of key components and underscore the need for further conceptual and interprofessional coordination in research and care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42690443What 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.