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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?