Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 CGA versus usual care, Outcome 11 Cognitive function. Review: Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital Comparison: 1 CGA versus usual care Outcome: 11 Cognitive function Study or subgroup Treatment Control Std. Mean Difference Weight Std. Mean Difference 1 Ward N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Fixed,95% CI IV,Fixed,95% CI Asplund 2000 169 26 (23.4) 206 24 (37.3) 11.4 % 0.06 [ -0.14, 0.27 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 169 206 11.4 % 0.06 [ -0.14, 0.27 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.60 (P = 0.55) 2 Team Hogan 1987 57 1.5 (1.4) 56 0.8 (2.1) 3.4 % 0.39 [ 0.02, 0.76 ] Kircher 2007 150 25 (18.4) 129 26 (17) 8.5 % -0.06 [ -0.29, 0.18 ] Reuben 1995 1337 72.3 (25.6) 1016 70.6 (25.5) 70.8 % 0.07 [ -0.02, 0.15 ] Winograd 1993 99 24.3 (7.1) 98 21.4 (9.2) 5.9 % 0.35 [ 0.07, 0.63 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 1643 1299 88.6 % 0.09 [ 0.01, 0.16 ] Heterogeneity: Chi 2 = 7.61, df = 3 (P = 0.05); I 2 =61% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.32 (P = 0.020) Total (95% CI) 1812 1505 100.0 % 0.08 [ 0.01, 0.15 ] Heterogeneity: Chi 2 = 7.65, df = 4 (P = 0.11); I 2 =48% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.39 (P = 0.017) Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 0.05, df = 1 (P = 0.83), I 2 =0.0% Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 Favours Control Favours Treatment 70
Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1 CGA versus usual care, Outcome 12 Length of stay. Review: Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital Comparison: 1 CGA versus usual care Outcome: 12 Length of stay 1 Ward Study or subgroup Treatment Control Mean Difference Weight Mean Difference N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI Asplund 2000 190 5.9 (5.7) 223 7.3 (5.7) 9.9 % -1.40 [ -2.50, -0.30 ] Cohen 2002 GEMC 346 23.8 (25.3) 346 14.8 (23.3) 8.0 % 9.00 [ 5.38, 12.62 ] Cohen 2002 UCOP 348 22.7 (27.9) 348 15.2 (23.8) 7.8 % 7.50 [ 3.65, 11.35 ] Fretwell 1990 221 11.6 (12.2) 215 12.8 (15.8) 8.9 % -1.20 [ -3.85, 1.45 ] Harris 1991 97 10.9 (7.9) 170 9.8 (7.8) 9.4 % 1.10 [ -0.86, 3.06 ] Nikolaus 1999 plus ESD 181 33.5 (21.5) 93 42.7 (20.4) 6.6 % -9.20 [ -14.40, -4.00 ] Nikolaus 1999 Ward 179 40.7 (24.1) 92 42.7 (20.4) 6.3 % -2.00 [ -7.46, 3.46 ] Saltvedt 2002 127 21.2 (16.2) 127 12.2 (15) 7.8 % 9.00 [ 5.16, 12.84 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 1689 1614 64.8 % 1.73 [ -1.56, 5.02 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 19.19; Chi 2 = 79.76, df = 7 (P
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 and 66: (... Continued) Study or subgroup T
Page 71: Analysis 1.10. 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?