MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415487559 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1812391

Preventing hospital-associated disability in older adults: a living systematic review

2025· article· en· W4415487559 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuephysioscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsCanadian Physiotherapy Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingBalance (ability)Older peoplePopulationSystematic reviewMEDLINERandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background During hospitalisation, older adults are at risk of experiencing functional decline unrelated to their initial condition, known as hospital-associated disability (HAD). HAD affects 37% of hospitalised older adults. The population of older adults is expected to grow in the coming years, likely leading to an increase in cases of HAD. Published systematic reviews have certain limitations, leaving several questions unanswered about the prevention of HAD. Randomised controlled studies (RCT) with multiple training components (such as different strengthening and balance or walking components) are difficult to compare against single-component programmes. The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of (single or multi-component) physical exercise programmes on the prevention of HAD in people over 65 years of age hospitalised in an acute care setting measured at hospital discharge. Methods Living systematic review with network meta-analysis of RCTs. As this study represents a living systematic review, findings are continuously updated. Physical exercise programmes were analysed as multi-component interventions. Risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBUST-RCT tool. Results In total 5967 records were screened for eligibility; 546 full texts were assessed, and 75 studies were included in the evidence synthesis. We analysed 19 pair-wise comparisons at discharge. Inconsistency in the network-analysis was low with I2 = 8.6%. The most effective programme was strengthening compared against usual care (SMD: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.06; 1.24). The exercise programme with the highest precision was balance+strengthening+walking (SMD: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.33; 0.67). Training focused on a single-component of basic daily activities was not more effective than usual care (SMD: –0.13; 95% CI –0.44; 0.18). Conclusion This work enhances the understanding of how to prevent HAD by providing detailed insights into specific components of physical exercise. Currently, the intervention with the highest precision suggests using a multi-component approach involving balance, strengthening, and walking components to prevent HAD in an acute care setting. A major issue with traditional systematic reviews is the lengthy publication process, which often results in findings becoming outdated by the time they are published. This living systematic review enables clinicians to stay current by rapidly integrating new findings into the evidence synthesis of HAD prevention.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.280 · 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