Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 470

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

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Multidisciplinary Intervention After Discharge of Elderly from the Emergency Department—The DEED II Study

Caplan, Gideon A., Williams, Anthony J., Daly, Barbra, Abraham, Ken·2004·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

Objectives: To study the effects of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and multidisciplinary intervention on elderly patients sent home from the emergency department (ED). Design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial with 18 months of follow‐up. Setting: Large medical school–affiliated public hospital in an urban setting in Sydney, Australia. Participants: A total of 739 patients aged 75 and older discharged home from the ED were randomized into two groups. Intervention: Patients randomized to the treatment group underwent initial CGA and were followed at home for up to 28 days by a hospital‐based multidisciplinary outreach team. The team implemented or coordinated recommendations. The control group received usual care. Measurements: The primary outcome measure was all admissions, to the hospital within 30 days of the initial ED visit. Secondary outcome measures were elective and emergency admissions, and nursing home admissions and mortality. Additional outcomes included physical function (Barthel Index (total possible score=20) and instrumental activities of daily living (/12) and cognitive function (mental status questionnaire (/10)). Results: Intervention patients had a lower rate of all admissions to the hospital during the first 30 days after the initial ED visit (16.5% vs 22.2%; P =.048), a lower rate of emergency admissions during the 18‐month follow‐up (44.4% vs 54.3%; P =.007), and longer time to first emergency admission (382 vs 348 days; P =.011). There was no difference in admission to nursing homes or mortality. Patients randomized to the intervention group maintained a greater degree of physical and mental function (Barthel Index change from baseline at 6 months: −0.25 vs −0.75; P <.001; mental status questionnaire change from baseline at 12 months: −0.21 vs −0.64; P <.001). Conclusion: CGA and multidisciplinary intervention can improve health outcomes of older people at risk of deteriorating health and admission to hospital. Patients aged 75 and older should be referred for CGA after an ED visit.

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.1532-5415.2004.52401.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 470

Metadata

Authors
Caplan, G. A., Williams, A. J., Daly, B., & Abraham, K.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-08-16
Volume
52
Issue
9
Pages
1417-1423
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W1777067760
Cited by
470
References
1
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Multidisciplinary Intervention After Discharge of Elderly from the Emergency Department—The DEED II Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52401.x
The paper
Caplan, G. A., Williams, A. J., Daly, B., & Abraham, K. (2004). A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Multidisciplinary Intervention After Discharge of Elderly from the Emergency Department—The DEED II Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52401.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.