MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404613415 · doi:10.1186/s12916-024-03764-7

Effectiveness of geriatric rehabilitation in inpatient and day hospital settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4404613415 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Wong, Peter Hoang, Andrew Kouri, S.S. Gill, Yu Qing Huang, Janice Lee, S. Weiss, Raymond Daniel, Jessie McGowan, Krystle Amog, Joanna E. M. Sale, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, David Naimark, Andrea C. Tricco, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of OttawaWomen's College HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationMoodGeriatric rehabilitationMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialRelative riskMEDLINECochrane LibraryPhysical therapyConfidence intervalQuality of life (healthcare)PsycINFOGeriatricsInternal medicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Geriatric rehabilitation is a multidisciplinary intervention that promotes functional recovery in older adults. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of geriatric rehabilitation in inpatient and geriatric day hospital settings. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, PEDro and AgeLine from inception to September 30, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including older adults (age ≥ 65 years) undergoing geriatric rehabilitation (inpatient or day hospital) with a usual care comparator group. Primary outcome measures included mortality, long-term care home (LTCH) admission, and functional status. Secondary outcomes included discharge/remaining at home, functional improvement, length of stay, cognition, mood, and quality of life. Records were screened, abstracted and assessed for risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias [RoB] 2) by two reviewers independently. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis to summarize risk ratios (RR, dichotomous outcomes) and standardized mean differences (SMD, continuous outcomes). Results Of the 5304 records screened, 29 studies (7999 patients) met eligibility criteria. There were 23 RCTs of inpatient geriatric rehabilitation (6428 patients) and six of geriatric day hospital (1571 patients) reporting outcomes of mortality (26 studies), LTCH admission (22 studies), functional status (19 studies), length of stay (18 studies), cognition (5 studies), mood (5 studies) and quality of life (6 studies). The primary outcome of mortality at longest follow up was lower in the rehabilitation group (RR 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 0.93, I 2 = 0%). LTCH admission was lower in the rehabilitation group at longest follow up (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98, I 2 = 8%). Functional status was better in the rehabilitation group at longest follow up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16, I 2 = 24%). Cognition was improved in the rehabilitation group (mean difference of mini-mental status exam score 0.97, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.60, I 2 = 0%). No difference was found for patient length of stay, mood, or quality of life. Conclusions Geriatric rehabilitation in inpatient and day hospital settings reduced mortality, LTCH admission, and functional impairment. Future studies should explore implementation of this intervention for older adults. Review registration PROSPERO: CRD42022345078.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC MedicineSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207