MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395466391 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006315

Exploring the Impact of Age, Frailty, and Multimorbidity on the Effect of ICU Interventions: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2024· review· en· W4395466391 on OpenAlexaff
A. C. Perrella, Olivia Geen, Manan Ahuja, Stephanie Scott, Ramya Kaushik, Lauren E. Ferrante, Nathan E. Brummel, John Muscedere, Bram Rochwerg

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsImpactQueen's UniversityWestern UniversityTrillium Health CentreMcMaster University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineGerontologyEmergency medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To date, age, frailty, and multimorbidity have been used primarily to inform prognosis in older adults. It remains uncertain, however, whether these patient factors may also predict response to critical care interventions or treatment outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic search of top general medicine and critical care journals for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining critical care interventions published between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We included RCTs of critical care interventions that examined any one of three subgroups-age, frailty, or multimorbidity. We excluded cluster RCTs, studies that did not report interventions in an ICU, and studies that did not report data examining subgroups of age, frailty, or multimorbidity. DATA EXTRACTION: We collected study characteristics (single vs. multicountry enrollment, single vs. multicenter enrollment, funding, sample size, intervention, comparator, primary outcome and secondary outcomes, length of follow-up), study population (inclusion and exclusion criteria, average age in intervention and comparator groups), and subgroup data. We used the Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses instrument to evaluate the credibility of subgroup findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 2037 unique citations, we included 48 RCTs comprising 50,779 total participants. Seven (14.6%) RCTs found evidence of statistically significant effect modification based on age, whereas none of the multimorbidity or frailty subgroups found evidence of statistically significant subgroup effect. Subgroup credibility ranged from very low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Most critical care RCTs do not examine for subgroup effects by frailty or multimorbidity. Although age is more commonly considered, the cut-point is variable, and relative effect modification is rare. Although interventional effects are likely similar across age groups, shared decision-making based on individual patient preferences must remain a priority. RCTs focused specifically on critically ill older adults or those living with frailty and/or multimorbidity are crucial to further address this research question.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.241
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.241
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.022
Bibliometrics0.0140.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.288
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207