Effectiveness of telephone-based interventions for managing osteoarthritis and spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Osteoarthritis and spinal pain are common and burdensome conditions; however, the majority of patients with these conditions do not receive care that is consistent with clinical practice guidelines. Telehealth models of care have the potential to improve care for osteoarthritis and spinal pain patients. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of verbal real-time telehealth interventions, including telephone-based and videoconferencing interventions to reduce pain intensity and disability in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip and spinal pain (back or neck pain). Methods We searched seven electronic databases from inception to May 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and non-randomised controlled trials were included. Two review authors independently extracted data for each included study. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We conducted primary meta-analyses combining all conditions with similar interventions and comparators. Standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE to evaluate the quality of evidence. Results We included 23 studies with 56 trial arms and 4,994 participants. All studies utilised telephone-based interventions. Only two studies used a telephone only approach and the remainder included educational materials and/or face-to-face components. We found no studies utilising videoconferencing. Meta-analysis showed telephone-based interventions (with educational materials) for osteoarthritis and spinal pain improved pain intensity (n = 5 trials, n = 1,357 participants, SMD −0.27, 95% CI [−0.53, −0.01], Tau2 = 0.06, I2 = 74%; moderate-quality evidence) and disability (n = 7 trials, n = 1,537 participants, SMD −0.21, 95% CI [−0.40, −0.02], Tau2 = 0.03, I2 = 56%; moderate-quality evidence) compared to usual care. Meta-analyses found telephone with face-to-face interventions does not improve pain and disability compared to usual care or face-to-face care alone. Discussion We are moderately confident that telephone-based interventions reduce pain intensity and disability in patients with osteoarthritis and spinal pain compared to usual care, but telephone plus face-to-face interventions are no more effective than usual care or face-to-face interventions alone.

Download Full-text

Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Paediatrics Open ◽

10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001129 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. e001129

Author(s):

Bill Stevenson ◽

Wubshet Tesfaye ◽

Julia Christenson ◽

Cynthia Mathew ◽

Solomon Abrha ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Head Lice ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

Download Full-text

Surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ ◽

10.1136/bmj.l1842 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. l1842 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Mari Imamura ◽

Jemma Hudson ◽

Sheila A Wallace ◽

Graeme MacLennan ◽

Michal Shimonovich ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Urinary Incontinence ◽

Stress Urinary Incontinence ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Surgical Interventions ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Objectives To compare the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. Methods Identification of relevant randomised controlled trials from Cochrane reviews and the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched May 2017), which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Medline In-Process, Medline Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. The reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. Primary outcomes were “cure” and “improvement” at 12 months, analysed by means of network meta-analyses, with results presented as the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Adverse events were analysed using pairwise meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The quality of evidence for network meta-analysis was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results 175 randomised controlled trials assessing a total of 21 598 women were included. Most studies had high or unclear risk across all risk of bias domains. Network meta-analyses were based on data from 105 trials that reported cure and 120 trials that reported improvement of incontinence symptoms. Results showed that the interventions with highest cure rates were traditional sling, retropubic midurethral sling (MUS), open colposuspension, and transobturator MUS, with rankings of 89.4%, 89.1%, 76.7%, and 64.1%, respectively. Compared with retropubic MUS, the odds ratio of cure for traditional sling was 1.06 (95% credible interval 0.62 to 1.85), for open colposuspension was 0.85 (0.54 to 1.33), and for transobtrurator MUS was 0.74 (0.59 to 0.92). Women were also more likely to experience an improvement in their incontinence symptoms after receiving retropubic MUS or transobturator MUS compared with other surgical procedures. In particular, compared with retropubic MUS, the odds ratio of improvement for transobturator MUS was 0.76 (95% credible interval 0.59 to 0.98), for traditional sling was 0.69 (0.39 to 1.26), and for open colposuspension was 0.65 (0.41 to 1.02). Quality of evidence was moderate for retropubic MUS versus transobturator MUS and low or very low for retropubic MUS versus the other two interventions. Data on adverse events were available mainly for mesh procedures, indicating a higher rate of repeat surgery and groin pain but a lower rate of suprapubic pain, vascular complications, bladder or urethral perforation, and voiding difficulties after transobturator MUS compared with retropubic MUS. Data on adverse events for non-MUS procedures were sparse and showed wide confidence intervals. Long term data were limited. Conclusions Retropubic MUS, transobturator MUS, traditional sling, and open colposuspension are more effective than other procedures for stress urinary incontinence in the short to medium term. Data on long term effectiveness and adverse events are, however, limited, especially around the comparative adverse events profiles of MUS and non-MUS procedures. A better understanding of complications after surgery for stress urinary incontinence is imperative. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016049339.

Download Full-text

Systematic review and meta-analysis of smart-technology vs. face-to-face physical activity interventions in older adults (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.36134 ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Cassandra D'Amore ◽

Julie C Reid ◽

Matthew Chan ◽

Samuel Fan ◽

Amanda Huang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Older Adults ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Community Dwelling ◽

Smart Technology ◽

Face To Face ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Community Dwelling Older Adults

BACKGROUND This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and a meta-analysis comparing smart-technology to face-to-face physical activity (PA) interventions, in community-dwelling older adults, mean age greater than or equal 60 years. OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of smart-technology interventions compared to face-to-face PA interventions on PA and physical function in older adults. Our secondary outcomes were depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life. METHODS We searched four electronic databases from inception to February 2021. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts, full texts, and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. We provided a narrative synthesis on all included studies and, where possible, we performed meta-analyses for similar outcomes. RESULTS 19 studies with a total of 3455 patients were included. Random-effects meta-analyses showed that smart-technology interventions resulted in improved step count (mean difference 1440 steps, 95% confidence interval (CI) 500, 2390) and total PA (standardized mean difference 0.17, 95% CI 0.02, 0.32) compared to face-face interventions. The quality of the evidence for the effects of smart-technology interventions was very low based on GRADE criteria. There was no difference between groups for measures of physical function. CONCLUSIONS Interventions that include smart-technology may improve daily step counts by an average of 1440 steps in community dwelling older adults, however the quality of the evidence was very low. Future studies are needed to improve the certainty of results.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Mhealth Interventions to Improve Nasal Corticosteroid Adherence in Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review Protocol

10.21203/rs.3.rs-277478/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Mats Baxter ◽

Jurgen Schwarze ◽

Andrew Bush ◽

Aziz Sheikh

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Systematic Review Protocol ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract IntroductionMobile health (mHealth) is a potential tool to improve nasal corticosteroid (NCS) adherence in allergic rhinitis (AR), which remains largely poor and inconsistent for many. We plan to undertake a systematic review to synthesise the evidence on the efficacy of mHealth interventions to improve NCS adherence in AR. Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), filtered for publication dates between January 2010 and August 2020. The search is scheduled to commence in August 2020. We will scan reference lists of included studies for additional eligible papers. Relevant unpublished or in-progress trials will be searched for through trial registries. Randomised controlled trials that examine the efficacy of mHealth interventions to improve NCS adherence in AR are to be included. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract relevant data from the included studies and perform a risk-of-bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. We will perform a narrative synthesis with relevant data tables and, if deemed clinically relevant and statistically adequate, meta-analyses using random-effects modelling. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement will be used to help guide the reporting of this review. Ethics and disseminationSince this systematic review will be exclusively based on published and retrievable literature, no ethics approval will be sought. The findings of this systematic review will be disseminated at appropriate conferences/webinars while being published in an open access peer-reviewed journal.Registration: In accordance with the guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 27th August 2020. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020198879.

Download Full-text

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of different antihypertensive drug classes for cardiovascular disease prevention: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044302 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. e044302

Author(s):

Heidi Jussil ◽

Anna Chaimani ◽

Bo Carlberg ◽

Mattias Brunström

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Antihypertensive Drug ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events ◽

Bias Assessment ◽

Drug Classes ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

IntroductionClinical practice guidelines differ in their recommendations on first-line antihypertensive drug classes. No adequately powered randomised controlled trial have assessed all major drug classes against each other, and previous meta-analyses have mainly relied on pairwise meta-analyses for treatment comparisons.Methods and analysisA systematic review and network meta-analysis will be carried out to assess the efficacy and acceptability of all major antihypertensive drug classes. PubMed and CENTRAL were searched on 21 February 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials with at least 1000 person-years of follow-up, assessing any antihypertensive agent against other agents or placebo. All trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be assessed for risk of bias using the second version of Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tool. The study selection process, risk of bias assessment and data extraction are done by two authors in duplicate. Relative risks from individual trials will be combined in pairwise meta-analyses; in the absence of important intransitivity, random-effects network meta-analysis will be performed. The primary outcome for efficacy will be major adverse cardiovascular events, whereas the primary acceptability outcome will be treatment discontinuation for any reason. Additional outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and acute renal failure. The impact of differences within drug classes will be explored through alternative networks, including analysing thiazide-like and thiazide-type diuretics separately.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only process aggregated study level data and does not require ethical approval. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020205482.

Download Full-text

Quality of life in patients receiving telemedicine enhanced chronic heart failure disease management: A meta-analysis

Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare ◽

10.1177/1357633x16660418 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 23 (7) ◽

pp. 639-649 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Liam Knox ◽

Rachel J Rahman ◽

Chris Beedie

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Heart Failure ◽

Disease Management ◽

Usual Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Quantitative Measure ◽

Well Being ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

Background Previous reviews have investigated the effectiveness of telemedicine in the treatment of heart failure (HF). Dependent variables have included hospitalisations, mortality rates, disease knowledge and health costs. Few reviews, however, have examined the variable of health-related quality of life (QoL). Methods Randomised controlled trials comparing the delivery methods of any form of telemedicine with usual care for the provision of HF disease-management were identified via searches of all relevant databases and reference lists. Studies had to report a quantitative measure for mental, physical or overall QoL in order to be included. Results A total of 33 studies were identified. However, poor reporting of data resulted in the exclusion of seven, leaving 26 studies with 7066 participants. Three separate, random effects meta-analyses were conducted for mental, physical and overall QoL. Telemedicine was not significantly more effective than usual care on mental and physical QoL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.03, (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.05–0.12), p = 0.45 and SMD 0.24, (95% CI −0.08–0.56), p = 0.14, respectively). However, when compared to usual care, telemedicine was associated with a small significant increase in overall QoL (SMD 0.23, (95% CI 0.09–0.37), p = 0.001). Moderator analyses indicated that telemedicine delivered over a long-duration (≥52 weeks) and via telemonitoring was most beneficial. Conclusion Compared to usual care, telemedicine significantly increases overall QoL in patients receiving HF disease management. Statistically non-significant but nonetheless positive trends were also observed for physical QoL. These findings provide preliminary support for the use of telemedicine in the management of heart failure without jeopardising patient well-being.

Download Full-text

Psychological interventions using virtual reality for pain associated with medical procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Psychological Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0033291719001855 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 50 (11) ◽

pp. 1795-1807 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Raluca Georgescu ◽

Liviu A. Fodor ◽

Anca Dobrean ◽

Ioana A. Cristea

Keyword(s):

Virtual Reality ◽

Usual Care ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Real Time ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Psychological Interventions ◽

Medical Procedures

AbstractBackgroundVirtual reality (VR) may enhance the effectiveness of psychological interventions for acute pain. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of VR-based interventions for pain associated with medical procedures.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO until June 17th 2018. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing VR-based psychological interventions to usual care, for pain intensity (primary outcome) or affective and cognitive components of pain (secondary outcomes), assessed real-time or retrospectively. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Risk of bias was independently evaluated by three raters using the revised Cochrane Collaboration tool. A random-effects model using the Paule and Mandel estimator was used for pooling effect sizes.Results27 RCTs (1452 patients) provided enough data for meta-analysis. Compared to usual care, VR-based interventions reduced pain intensity both real-time (9 RCTs, Hedges' g = 0.95, 95% CI 0.32–1.57) and retrospectively (22 RCTs, g = 0.87, 95% CI 0.54–1.21). Results were similar for cognitive (8 RCTs, g = 0.82, 95% CI 0.39–1.26) and affective pain components (14 RCTs, g = 0.55, 95% CI 0.34–0.77). There was marked heterogeneity, which remained similarly high in sensitivity analyses. Across domains, few trials were rated as low risk of bias and there was evidence of publication bias. Adverse events were rare.ConclusionsThough VR-based interventions reduced pain for patients undergoing medical procedures, inferring clinical effectiveness is precluded by the predominance of small trials, with substantial risk of bias, and by incomplete reporting.

Download Full-text

The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review

BMJ ◽

10.1136/bmj.n736 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. n736

Author(s):

Huan Wang ◽

Yancong Chen ◽

Yali Lin ◽

Julius Abesig ◽

Irene XY Wu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Methodological Quality ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

A Priori ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Individual Participant ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Objective To assess the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and to identify areas for improvement. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews with IPD meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on intervention effects published in English. Results 323 IPD meta-analyses covering 21 clinical areas and published between 1991 and 2019 were included: 270 (84%) were non-Cochrane reviews and 269 (84%) were published in journals with a high impact factor (top quarter). The IPD meta-analyses showed low compliance in using a satisfactory technique to assess the risk of bias of the included randomised controlled trials (43%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 48%), accounting for risk of bias when interpreting results (40%, 34% to 45%), providing a list of excluded studies with justifications (32%, 27% to 37%), establishing an a priori protocol (31%, 26% to 36%), prespecifying methods for assessing both the overall effects (44%, 39% to 50%) and the participant-intervention interactions (31%, 26% to 36%), assessing and considering the potential of publication bias (31%, 26% to 36%), and conducting a comprehensive literature search (19%, 15% to 23%). Up to 126 (39%) IPD meta-analyses failed to obtain IPD from 90% or more of eligible participants or trials, among which only 60 (48%) provided reasons and 21 (17%) undertook certain strategies to account for the unavailable IPD. Conclusions The methodological quality of IPD meta-analyses is unsatisfactory. Future IPD meta-analyses need to establish an a priori protocol with prespecified data syntheses plan, comprehensively search the literature, critically appraise included randomised controlled trials with appropriate technique, account for risk of bias during data analyses and interpretation, and account for unavailable IPD.

Download Full-text

Differentiating PSP from MSA using MR planimetric measurements: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Neural Transmission ◽

10.1007/s00702-021-02362-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Beatrice Heim ◽

Florian Krismer ◽

Klaus Seppi

Keyword(s):

Sensitivity And Specificity ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Index Test ◽

Study Quality ◽

Parkinsonian Syndromes ◽

Quantitative Mr ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Planimetric Measurements

AbstractDifferential diagnosis of parkinsonian syndromes is considered one of the most challenging in neurology. Quantitative MR planimetric measurements were reported to discriminate between progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and non-PSP-parkinsonism. Several studies have used midbrain to pons ratio (M/P) and the Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index (MRPI) in distinguishing PSP patients from those with Parkinson's disease. The current meta-analysis aimed to compare the performance of these measures in discriminating PSP from multiple system atrophy (MSA). A systematic MEDLINE review identified 59 out of 2984 studies allowing a calculation of sensitivity and specificity using the MRPI or M/P. Meta-analyses of results were carried out using random effects modelling. To assess study quality and risk of bias, the QUADAS-2 tool was used. Eight studies were suitable for analysis. The meta‐analysis showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity for the MRPI of PSP versus MSA of 79.2% (95% CI 72.7–84.4%) and 91.2% (95% CI 79.5–96.5%), and 84.1% (95% CI 77.2–89.2%) and 89.2% (95% CI 81.8–93.8%), respectively, for the M/P. The QUADAS-2 toolbox revealed a high risk of bias regarding the methodological quality of patient selection and index test, as all patients were seen in a specialized outpatient department without avoiding case control design and no predefined threshold was given regarding MRPI or M/P cut-offs. Planimetric brainstem measurements, in special the MRPI and M/P, yield high diagnostic accuracy for the discrimination of PSP from MSA. However, there is an urgent need for well-designed, prospective validation studies to ameliorate the concerns regarding the risk of bias.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment intervention on quality of life, caregiver burden and length of hospital stay: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMC Geriatrics ◽

10.1186/s12877-021-02319-2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Zhongyi Chen ◽

Zhaosheng Ding ◽

Caixia Chen ◽

Yangfan Sun ◽

Yuyu Jiang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Usual Care ◽

Caregiver Burden ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Subgroup Analyses ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) interventions can improve functional ability and reduce mortality in older adults, but the effectiveness of CGA intervention on the quality of life, caregiver burden, and length of hospital stay remains unclear. The study aimed to determine the effectiveness of CGA intervention on the quality of life, length of hospital stay, and caregiver burden in older adults by conducting meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted for papers published before February 29, 2020, based on inclusion criteria. Standardised mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias analyses were also conducted. Results A total of 28 RCTs were included. Overall, the intervention components common in different CGA intervention models were interdisciplinary assessments and team meetings. Meta-analyses showed that CGA interventions improved the quality of life of older people (SMD = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.21; P = 0.009) compared to usual care, and subgroup analyses showed that CGA interventions improved the quality of life only in participants’ age > 80 years and at follow-up ≤3 months. The change value of quality of life in the CGA intervention group was better than that in the usual care group on six dimensions of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36). Also, compared to usual care, the CGA intervention reduced the caregiver burden (SMD = − 0.56; 95% CI = − 0.97 to − 0.15, P = 0.007), but had no significant effect on the length of hospital stay. Conclusions CGA intervention was effective in improving the quality of life and reducing caregiver burden, but did not affect the length of hospital stay. It is recommended that future studies apply the SF-36 to evaluate the impact of CGA interventions on the quality of life and provide supportive strategies for caregivers as an essential part of the CGA intervention, to find additional benefits of CGA interventions.

Download Full-text