Cited by 1,068Frailty in Older AdultsGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Open access
Ellis, G., Whitehead, M. A., Robinson, D., O'Neill, D., Langhorne, P.·2011·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospital for older adults admitted as an emergency. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the EPOC Register, Cochrane's Controlled Trials Register, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AARP Ageline, and handsearched high yield journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of comprehensive geriatric assessment (whether by mobile teams or in designated wards) compared with usual care. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process used to determine the medical, psychological, and functional capabilities of a frail elderly person to develop a coordinated and integrated plan for treatment and long term follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three independent reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality and extracted published data. Two additional reviewers moderated. RESULTS: Twenty two trials evaluating 10,315 participants in six countries were identified. For the primary outcome "living at home," patients who underwent comprehensive geriatric assessment were more likely to be alive and in their own homes at the end of scheduled follow-up (odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.28; P = 0.003; number needed to treat 33) at a median follow-up of 12 months versus 1.25 (1.11 to 1.42; P < 0.001; number needed to treat 17) at a median follow-up of six months) compared with patients who received general medical care. In addition, patients were less likely to be living in residential care (0.78, 0.69 to 0.88; P < 0.001). Subgroup interaction suggested differences between the subgroups "wards" and "teams" in favour of wards. Patients were also less likely to die or experience deterioration (0.76, 0.64 to 0.90; P = 0.001) and were more likely to experience improved cognition (standardised mean difference 0.08, 0.01 to 0.15; P = 0.02) in the comprehensive geriatric assessment group. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive geriatric assessment increases patients' likelihood of being alive and in their own homes after an emergency admission to hospital. This seems to be especially true for trials of wards designated for comprehensive geriatric assessment and is associated with a potential cost reduction compared with general medical care.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.d6553

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Comprehensive geriatric assessment has been applied successfully beyond elderly care medicine.

    “has been applied successfully beyond elderly care medicine (112, 113).”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [113]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ellis, G., Whitehead, M. A., Robinson, D., O'Neill, D., & Langhorne, P.
Affiliations
  • Monklands Hospital (GB)
  • Wishaw General Hospital (GB)
  • St. James's Hospital (IE)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
Ellis, G.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2011-10-27
Volume
343
Issue
oct27 1
Pages
d6553-d6553
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2095649880
Cited by
1,068
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 89 · 2018: 101 · 2017: 106 · 2016: 99 · 2015: 89 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 59
FWCI
5.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
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, emergency admissions, frailty, living at home, residential care, mortality, cognitive function, geriatric ward, multidisciplinary care, cost reduction, quality of life, functional capacity, long-term follow-up, nursing homes, nursing homes for older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Emergencies, Hospitalization, Humans, Geriatric Assessment, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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