Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 2 Discharge to an increased level of care.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 2 Discharge to an increased level of care.

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 3 Length of stay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 3 Length of stay.

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 4 Re‐admission.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 4 Re‐admission.

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 5 Major complication.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 5 Major complication.

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 6 Major complication ‐ delirium.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Geriatric care versus control, Outcome 6 Major complication ‐ delirium.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older people admitted to a surgical service

Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older people admitted to a surgical service

Patient or population: Improving outcomes in older adult people admitted to a surgical service.
Setting: Acute hospital or rehabilitation hospital following acute admission; Canada, Netherlands, Norway, UK, USA, Spain, and Sweden.
Intervention: Comprehensive geriatric assessment.
Comparison: Control.

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with control

Risk with geriatric care

Mortality

214 per 1000

182 per 1000
(145 to 225)

RR 0.85
(0.68 to 1.05)

1316
(5 randomised trials)

⊕⊕⊕◯ 1
MODERATE

Hip fracture studies.

Discharge to an increased level of care

247 per 1000

176 per 1000
(136 to 227)

RR 0.71
(0.55 to 0.92)

941
(5 randomised trials)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
HIGH

Hip fracture studies.

Length of stay

Meta‐analysis was not performed due to high heterogeneity (Analysis 1.3)

MD in studies ranged from ‐12.8 days to 8.3 days

841
(4 randomised trials)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 2

Hip fracture studies ‐ length of stay until final discharge from hospital (including rehabilitation hospital). Meta‐analysis was not retained due to high heterogeneity (I² = 88%, P < 0.00001).

Re‐admission

316 per 1000

316 per 1000
(240 to 418)

RR 1.00
(0.76 to 1.32)

741
(3 randomised trials)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 1

All studies included; removing elective surgical oncology study doesn't change effect.

Total cost

The mean total cost was EUR 59,486

MD EUR 5154 lower
(13,288 lower to 2980 higher)

397
(1 randomised trials)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 3

1 study reported cost.

Major complication

Meta‐analysis was not performed due to high heterogeneity (Analysis 1.5)

Two studies reported this outcome with RRs of 0.74 and 1.16

579
(2 randomised trials)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

Hempenius 2013 defined major as 2 or more complications. Vidán 2005 defined major as delirium, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, DVT, PE, pressure ulcer, arrhythmia and myocardial infarction. Meta‐analysis was not retained due to high heterogeneity (I² = 77%, P = 0.04).

Major complication ‐ delirium

327 per 1000

245 per 1000
(196 to 307)

RR 0.75
(0.60 to 0.94)

705
(3 randomised trials)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW1 4

Delirium assessed by Delirium Observation Scale (Hempenius 2013) or confusion assessment method (Marcantonio 2001; Vidán 2005)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 We downgraded due to imprecision because there were wide confidence intervals that include both no effect and a high risk of benefit or harm.

2 We downgraded due to inconsistency because there was significant variability among studies.

3 We downgraded due to other considerations because costing was calculated in an imprecise manner (costs are presented as the total cost over one year, however the admission cost did not include rehabilitation hospital costs despite the authors identifying a higher proportion of control patients being transferred to rehabilitation centres before discharge).

4 We downgraded due to the high risk of bias.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older people admitted to a surgical service
Comparison 1. Geriatric care versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

5

1316

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.68, 1.05]

1.1 4 to 6 months

2

476

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.46, 1.20]

1.2 1 year

3

840

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.69, 1.11]

2 Discharge to an increased level of care Show forest plot

5

941

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.55, 0.92]

2.1 Discharge

1

108

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.12, 0.79]

2.2 4 to 6 months

2

344

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.54, 1.21]

2.3 1 year

2

489

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.52, 1.03]

3 Length of stay Show forest plot

5

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Acute hospital discharge

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Discharge

4

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Re‐admission Show forest plot

3

741

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.76, 1.32]

4.1 1 to 3 months

1

225

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.74, 2.09]

4.2 1 year

2

516

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.67, 1.33]

5 Major complication Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Discharge

2

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Major complication ‐ delirium Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Discharge

3

705

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.60, 0.94]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Geriatric care versus control