Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(... Continued) Study or subgroup Treatment Control Odds Ratio Weight Odds Ratio n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI White 1994 6/20 13/20 2.3 % 0.23 [ 0.06, 0.87 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 2020 2299 86.8 % 0.72 [ 0.61, 0.85 ] Total events: 311 (Treatment), 476 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi 2 = 10.27, df = 9 (P = 0.33); I 2 =12% Test for overall effect: Z = 3.95 (P = 0.000079) 2 Team Hogan 1987 23/57 22/56 3.4 % 1.05 [ 0.49, 2.22 ] McVey 1989 25/93 20/92 3.8 % 1.32 [ 0.67, 2.60 ] Naughton 1994 9/51 11/60 2.1 % 0.95 [ 0.36, 2.52 ] Winograd 1993 17/99 18/98 3.9 % 0.92 [ 0.44, 1.91 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 300 306 13.2 % 1.07 [ 0.73, 1.57 ] Total events: 74 (Treatment), 71 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi 2 = 0.60, df = 3 (P = 0.90); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.37 (P = 0.71) Total (95% CI) 2320 2605 100.0 % 0.76 [ 0.66, 0.89 ] Total events: 385 (Treatment), 547 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi 2 = 14.43, df = 13 (P = 0.34); I 2 =10% Test for overall effect: Z = 3.49 (P = 0.00049) Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 3.64, df = 1 (P = 0.06), I 2 =73% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Favours experimental Favours control Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 64
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 CGA versus usual care, Outcome 6 Institutionalisation (end of follow up). Review: Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital Comparison: 1 CGA versus usual care Outcome: 6 Institutionalisation (end of follow up) 1 Ward Study or subgroup Treatment Control Odds Ratio Weight Odds Ratio n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI Applegate 1990 7/78 15/77 2.3 % 0.41 [ 0.16, 1.06 ] Asplund 2000 48/169 72/206 7.9 % 0.74 [ 0.48, 1.15 ] Cohen 2002 GEMC 67/346 88/346 12.0 % 0.70 [ 0.49, 1.01 ] Cohen 2002 UCOP 60/348 89/348 12.5 % 0.61 [ 0.42, 0.88 ] Collard 1985 47/218 119/477 9.9 % 0.83 [ 0.56, 1.21 ] Counsell 2000 52/767 56/764 8.9 % 0.92 [ 0.62, 1.36 ] Fretwell 1990 70/221 85/215 10.0 % 0.71 [ 0.48, 1.05 ] Kay 1992 12/30 12/29 1.2 % 0.94 [ 0.33, 2.67 ] Landefeld 1995 67/327 90/324 12.2 % 0.67 [ 0.47, 0.96 ] Nikolaus 1999 plus ESD 30/181 21/92 3.9 % 0.67 [ 0.36, 1.25 ] Nikolaus 1999 Ward 35/179 21/93 3.8 % 0.83 [ 0.45, 1.53 ] Rubenstein 1984 13/63 9/60 1.2 % 1.47 [ 0.58, 3.75 ] Saltvedt 2002 16/127 16/127 2.4 % 1.00 [ 0.48, 2.10 ] White 1994 6/20 13/20 1.5 % 0.23 [ 0.06, 0.87 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 3074 3178 89.6 % 0.73 [ 0.64, 0.84 ] Total events: 530 (Treatment), 706 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi 2 = 10.64, df = 13 (P = 0.64); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 4.64 (P < 0.00001) 2 Team Hogan 1987 23/57 22/56 2.2 % 1.05 [ 0.49, 2.22 ] Kircher 2007 24/150 15/129 2.3 % 1.45 [ 0.72, 2.90 ] McVey 1989 12/93 7/92 1.0 % 1.80 [ 0.67, 4.80 ] Naughton 1994 9/51 11/60 1.4 % 0.95 [ 0.36, 2.52 ] Winograd 1993 26/99 27/98 3.4 % 0.94 [ 0.50, 1.76 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 450 435 10.4 % 1.16 [ 0.83, 1.63 ] Total events: 94 (Treatment), 82 (Control) Heterogeneity: Chi 2 = 1.83, df = 4 (P = 0.77); I 2 =0.0% 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Favours experimental Favours control Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (Continued ...) 65
Page 1 and 2:
Comprehensive geriatric assessment
Page 3 and 4:
[Intervention Review] Comprehensive
Page 5 and 6:
A third has evaluated the subgroup
Page 7 and 8:
AARP Ageline (from 1978 to April 20
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 2. Comprehensive geriatric a
Page 11 and 12:
esults are only reported where sign
Page 13 and 14:
Table 1. Cost analysis Cost Analysi
Page 15 and 16: these subgroups (teams with needs-r
Page 17 and 18: Again, analysis suggested that wher
Page 19 and 20: an acute care hospital. Canadian Me
Page 21 and 22: Liem 1986 {published data only} Lie
Page 23 and 24: C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F S
Page 25 and 26: Asplund 2000 (Continued) Random seq
Page 27 and 28: Cohen 2002 GEMC Methods This is the
Page 29 and 30: Cohen 2002 UCOP (Continued) Selecti
Page 31 and 32: Counsell 2000 (Continued) Intervent
Page 33 and 34: Fretwell 1990 (Continued) Study pro
Page 35 and 36: Hogan 1987 (Continued) Notes Risk o
Page 37 and 38: Kircher 2007 Methods Year: 2007 Loc
Page 39 and 40: Landefeld 1995 (Continued) Allocati
Page 41 and 42: Naughton 1994 (Continued) Intervent
Page 43 and 44: Nikolaus 1999 plus ESD (Continued)
Page 45 and 46: Powell 1990 (Continued) Random sequ
Page 47 and 48: Rubenstein 1984 Methods Year: 1984
Page 49 and 50: Saltvedt 2002 (Continued) Random se
Page 51 and 52: Thomas 1993 (Continued) Patient sel
Page 53 and 54: White 1994 (Continued) Other bias U
Page 55 and 56: (Continued) Cole 1991 Evaluation of
Page 57 and 58: D A T A A N D A N A L Y S E S Compa
Page 59 and 60: 2.6 Teams (stepdown assessment) Com
Page 61 and 62: Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 CGA vers
Page 63 and 64: (... Continued) Study or subgroup T
Page 65: (... Continued) Study or subgroup T
Page 71 and 72: Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 CGA ver
Page 73 and 74: Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1 CGA ver
Page 77 and 78: (... Continued) Study or subgroup F
Page 79 and 80: (... Continued) Study or subgroup E
Page 81 and 82: (... Continued) Study or subgroup E
Page 85 and 86: 10. *“outcome and process assessm
show all

Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?