Cited by 1,974Frailty in Older AdultsGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Comprehensive geriatric assessment: a meta-analysis of controlled trials

Stuck, A.E, Siu, A.L, Wieland, G.D, Rubenstein, L.Z, Adams, J·1993·The Lancet

Abstract

There is disagreement on the usefulness of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) due to conflicting results from individual trials. We did a meta-analysis on 28 controlled trials comprising 4959 subjects allocated to one of five CGA types and 4912 controls. Published data were supplemented with reanalysed data provided by the original investigators. We calculated combined odds ratios of important outcomes by pooling data from individual trials with multivariate logistic regression. Combined odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of living at home at follow-up was 1.68 (1.17-2.41) for geriatric evaluation and management units, 1.49 (1.12-1.98) for hospital-home assessment services, and 1.20 (1.05-1.37) for home assessment services. Covariate analysis showed that programmes with control over medical recommendations and extended ambulatory follow-up were more likely to be effective. Our analysis suggests that CGA programmes linking geriatric evaluation with strong long-term management are effective for improving survival and function in older persons.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92884-v

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Frailty is measured in many ways, including rules-based instruments, summative impairment lists and algorithms derived from clinical judgement.

    “Frailty is measured in many ways, including 'rules based' instruments, summative impairment lists and algorithms derived from clinical judgement [4][5][6].”

    From Validity and reliability of the Edmonton Frail Scale (2006) · cites this paper as [5]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stuck, A. E., Siu, A. L., Wieland, G. D., Rubenstein, L. Z., & Adams, J.
Affiliations
  • New York State Department of Health (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
Corresponding author
Stuck, A.E
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1993-10
Volume
342
Issue
8878
Pages
1032-1036
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2143751244
Cited by
1,974
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 85 · 2015: 75 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 78
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
comprehensive geriatric assessment, older adults, living at home, long-term management, outpatient follow-up, medical advice, functional outcome, survival
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aftercare, Aged, Clinical Trials as Topic, Cognition, Follow-Up Studies, Geriatrics, Home Care Services, Hospital Units, Humans, Mortality, Patient Admission, Patient Readmission, Referral and Consultation, Geriatric Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review