National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence: Frailty and Healthy Ageing, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Torrens University Australia, South Australia, Australia.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence: Frailty and Healthy Ageing, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Adelaide Geriatrics Training & Research with Aged Care (G-TRAC) Centre, Adelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2023 Jun;24(6):782-789.e15. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.03.018. Epub 2023 Apr 20.
To perform an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses (MAs) examining the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) delivered within community settings to general populations of community-dwelling older people against various health outcomes.
Umbrella review of MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Systematic reviews with MAs examining associations between CGA conducted within the community and any health outcome, where participants were community-dwelling older people with a minimum mean age of 60 years or where at least 50% of study participants were aged ≥60 years. Studies focusing on residential care, hospitals, post-hospital care, outpatient clinics, emergency department, or patients with specific conditions were excluded.
We examined CGA effectiveness against 12 outcomes: not living at home, nursing home admission, activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (IADLs), physical function, falls, self-reported health status, quality of life, frailty, mental health, hospital admission, and mortality, searching the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase databases from January 1, 1999, to August 10, 2022. AMSTAR-2 was used to assess the quality of included systematic reviews, including risk of bias.
We identified 10 MAs. Only not living at home (combined mortality and nursing home admission) demonstrated concordance between effect direction, significance, and magnitude. Significant effects were more typically observed in earlier rather than later studies.
Given the widespread adoption of CGA as a component of usual care within geriatric medicine, the lack of strong evidence demonstrating the protective effects of CGA may be indicative of a cohort effect. If so, future RCTs examining CGA effectiveness are unlikely to demonstrate significant findings. Future studies of CGA in the community should focus on implementation and adherence to key components.
Study protocol registered in PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020169680.
对系统评价进行伞式综述,这些系统评价采用荟萃分析(MA)研究了在社区环境中对居住在社区的老年人进行全面老年评估(CGA)对各种健康结果的有效性。
对社区内进行的 CGA 与任何健康结果之间关联的 MA 的系统评价进行伞式综述。
至少有 50%的研究参与者年龄≥60 岁,或研究对象为平均年龄≥60 岁的社区居住老年人的社区内进行的 CGA 与任何健康结果之间关联的 MA。排除专门针对住院护理、医院、住院后护理、门诊、急诊或特定疾病患者的研究。
我们研究了 CGA 在 12 个结果方面的有效性:不在家居住、入住疗养院、日常生活活动(ADL)和工具性日常生活活动(IADL)、身体功能、跌倒、自我报告的健康状况、生活质量、衰弱、心理健康、住院和死亡。我们从 1999 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 8 月 10 日在 MEDLINE/PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、CINAHL、Embase 数据库中进行了检索。我们使用 AMSTAR-2 评估了纳入系统评价的质量,包括偏倚风险。
我们确定了 10 项 MA。只有不在家居住(合并死亡率和疗养院入住率)的结果在效应方向、显著性和大小上具有一致性。更早的研究更可能观察到显著的效果。
鉴于 CGA 作为老年医学常规护理的一部分已被广泛采用,但缺乏强有力的证据表明 CGA 的保护作用可能表明存在队列效应。如果是这样,未来研究 CGA 有效性的 RCT 不太可能得出显著结果。未来在社区中进行的 CGA 研究应侧重于关键组成部分的实施和遵守。
研究方案在 PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020169680 中进行了注册。