Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Geriatric‐Based Versus General Wards for Older Acute Medical Patients: A Randomized Comparison of Outcomes and Use of Resources

Open access
Asplund, Kjell, Gustafson, Yngve, Jacobsson, Catrine, Bucht, Gösta., Wahlin, Anders, Peterson, Jonas, Blom, Jan‐Olof, Ängquist, Karl‐Axel·2000·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

BACKGROUND : The effects of residence in an acute geriatrics‐based ward (AGW) with emphasis on early rehabilitation and discharge planning for older patients with acute medical illnesses were assessed. Outcome and use of resources were compared with those of patients treated in general medical wards (MWs). A per‐protocol rather than intention‐to‐treat analysis was performed. METHODS : A randomized trial with 3‐months follow‐up. A total of 190 patients aged 70 years and older were randomized to an acute geriatrics‐based ward, and 223 patients were randomized to general medical wards. RESULTS : The two groups were comparable at inclusion. However, after care in the AGW, 71% of patients could be discharged directly home compared with 64% of those treated in MWs (relative risk 1.17; 95% CI, 0.93–1.49). The length of stay was shorter in the AGW (mean 5.9 vs 7.3 days; P = .002). The proportion of patients in geriatric or other hospital wards or in nursing homes did not differ, but the proportion of AGW patients in sheltered living tended to be lower ( P = .085). At the follow‐up, case fatality, ADL function, psychological well‐being, need for daily personal assistance, drug consumption, need for readmission to hospital, and total health care costs after discharge did not differ between the two groups. Poor global outcome was observed in 37% of AGW and 34% of MW patients. CONCLUSIONS : A geriatric approach with greater emphasis on early rehabilitation and discharge planning in the AGW shortened the length of hospital stay and may have reduced the need for long‐term institutional living. This occurred despite patients in an acute geriatric ward not having better medical or functional outcome than older acute patients treated in general medical wards.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb02626.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 189

Metadata

Authors
Asplund, K., Gustafson, Y., Jacobsson, C., Bucht, G., Wahlin, A., Peterson, J., Blom, J., & Ängquist, K.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-11
Volume
48
Issue
11
Pages
1381-1388
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2088748871
Cited by
189
References
1
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Geriatric‐Based Versus General Wards for Older Acute Medical Patients: A Randomized Comparison of Outcomes and Use of Resources. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb02626.x
The paper
Asplund, K., Gustafson, Y., Jacobsson, C., Bucht, G., Wahlin, A., Peterson, J., Blom, J., & Ängquist, K. (2000). Geriatric‐Based Versus General Wards for Older Acute Medical Patients: A Randomized Comparison of Outcomes and Use of Resources. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb02626.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.