Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to ...

(... Continued)
Study or subgroup Experimental Control Odds Ratio Weight Odds Ratio
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Subtotal (95% CI) 144 152 6.6 % 0.94 [ 0.57, 1.55 ]
Total events: 100 (Experimental), 108 (Control)
Heterogeneity: Chi 2 = 0.41, df = 1 (P = 0.52); I 2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.25 (P = 0.80)
Total (95% CI) 2381 2736 100.0 % 1.25 [ 1.11, 1.42 ]
Total events: 1658 (Experimental), 1779 (Control)
Heterogeneity: Chi 2 = 25.57, df = 13 (P = 0.02); I 2 =49%
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.70 (P = 0.00021)
Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 15.19, df = 3 (P = 0.00), I 2 =80%
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
Favours control Favours experimental
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 CGA versus usual care (targeting), Outcome 2 Living at home (end of follow up).
Review: Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital
Comparison: 2 CGA versus usual care (targeting)
Outcome: 2 Living at home (end of follow up)
Study or subgroup Favours control Control Odds Ratio Weight Odds Ratio
1 Wards with needs-related admission criteria
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Applegate 1990 55/78 43/77 1.7 % 1.89 [ 0.97, 3.67 ]
Cohen 2002 GEMC 200/346 185/346 10.4 % 1.19 [ 0.88, 1.61 ]
Cohen 2002 UCOP 217/348 185/348 9.3 % 1.46 [ 1.08, 1.97 ]
Kay 1992 16/30 17/29 1.1 % 0.81 [ 0.29, 2.26 ]
Nikolaus 1999 plus ESD 118/181 55/92 3.4 % 1.26 [ 0.75, 2.11 ]
Nikolaus 1999 Ward 114/179 56/93 3.6 % 1.16 [ 0.69, 1.94 ]
Rubenstein 1984 35/63 22/60 1.3 % 2.16 [ 1.05, 4.45 ]
Saltvedt 2002 76/127 68/127 3.6 % 1.29 [ 0.79, 2.13 ]
White 1994 14/20 7/20 0.3 % 4.33 [ 1.15, 16.32 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 1372 1192 34.6 % 1.36 [ 1.16, 1.60 ]
Total events: 845 (Favours control), 638 (Control)
0.05 0.2 1 5 20
Favours control Favours experimental
Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital (Review)
Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
(Continued ...)
74