Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effectiveness of Inpatient Geriatric Evaluation and Management Units: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Van Craen, Katleen, Braes, Tom, Wellens, Nathalie, Denhaerynck, Kris, Flamaing, Johan, Moons, Philip, Boonen, Steven, Gosset, Christiane, Petermans, Jean, Milisen, Koen·2010·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine how geriatric evaluation and management units (GEMUs) are organized and to examine the effectiveness of admission on a GEMU. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta‐analysis based on literature search of multiple databases and the references lists of all identified articles and by contacting authors. SETTING: GEMUs. PARTICIPANTS: Elderly people admitted to a GEMU. MEASUREMENTS: Quality of the studies was assessed on 10 criteria. The outcome parameters were mortality, institutionalization, functional decline, readmission, and length of stay at different follow‐up points. A random‐effects meta‐analysis was performed using Hedges' gu and variance of relative risk (RR). RESULTS: GEMUs are organized in a heterogeneous way and the included studies gave no thorough description of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Involvement of a multidisciplinary team was a key element in all GEMUs. The individual trials showed that admission to a GEMU has one or more favorable effects on the outcomes of interest, with two significant effects in the meta‐analysis: less functional decline at discharge from the GEMU (RR=0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.77–0.99; P =.04) and a lower rate of institutionalization 1 year after discharge (RR=0.78, CI=0.66–0.92; P =.003). For the other outcomes in the meta‐analysis, a GEMU did not induce significantly different outcomes than usual care. CONCLUSION: This meta‐analysis shows a significant effect in favor of the GEMU group on functional decline at discharge and on institutionalization after 1 year. There is heterogeneity between the studies, poor quality of some randomized controlled trials, and shortage of information about CGA. Multidisciplinary CGA offered in a GEMU may add value to the care for frail older persons admitted to the hospital, but the limitations confirm the need for well‐designed studies using explicit CGA and more‐structured and ‐coherent assessment instruments such as the Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment Instrument.

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.1532-5415.2009.02621.x

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 236

Metadata

Authors
Van Craen, K., Braes, T., Wellens, N., Denhaerynck, K., Flamaing, J., Moons, P., Boonen, S., Gosset, C., Petermans, J., & Milisen, K.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-01
Volume
58
Issue
1
Pages
83-92
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W1605791297
Cited by
236
References
6
FWCI
1.75
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: The Effectiveness of Inpatient Geriatric Evaluation and Management Units: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02621.x
The paper
Van Craen, K., Braes, T., Wellens, N., Denhaerynck, K., Flamaing, J., Moons, P., Boonen, S., Gosset, C., Petermans, J., & Milisen, K. (2010). The Effectiveness of Inpatient Geriatric Evaluation and Management Units: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02621.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.