Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to ...

McVey 1989 (Continued)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection
bias)
Low risk Computerised randomisation scheme
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described
Blinding (performance bias and detection
bias)
All outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes
Low risk No blinding of staff in CGA team. No patient
blinding. There was blinding of the
outcome assessor
Unclear risk Analysis as per protocol after initial exclusion
of some patients
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No a priori documentation could be found
to judge this item
Other bias Low risk No clear evidence of selection bias, performance
bias or attrition bias
Baseline outcome measurements similar Low risk Baseline measurements were the same
Baseline characteristics similar Low risk Baseline characteristics were very similar
Study protected against contamination Unclear risk The team operated in different wards
Naughton 1994
Methods Year: 1994
Location: Chicago, Il, USA (Urban Teaching Hospital)
Team/ward?: team
Timing: direct from the emergency department
Trial methodology: randomised controlled trial
Participants Numbers (total): 111
Mean age: 80
Male:female ratio: 40% male (approximately)
Inclusion criteria: 70 years admitted from ED to medicine service and did not regularly
receive care from attending internist on staff at study hospital at time of admission.
Exclusion criteria: admission to ITU or transferred to a surgical service
Patient selection criteria: unselected
Patient selection criteria details: over 70s admitted as an emergency
Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital (Review)
Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
38