4.7 Review

Prognostic Indices for Older Adults A Systematic Review

期刊

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.1966

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [5T32AG000212]
  2. Greenwall Foundation
  3. National Center for Research Resources [UL1 RR024131]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context To better target services to those who may benefit, many guidelines recommend incorporating life expectancy into clinical decisions. Objective To assess the quality and limitations of prognostic indices for mortality in older adults through systematic review. Data Sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from their inception through November 2011. Study Selection We included indices if they were validated and predicted absolute risk of mortality in patients whose average age was 60 years or older. We excluded indices that estimated intensive care unit, disease-specific, or in-hospital mortality. Data Extraction For each prognostic index, we extracted data on clinical setting, potential for bias, generalizability, and accuracy. Results We reviewed 21 593 titles to identify 16 indices that predict risk of mortality from 6 months to 5 years for older adults in a variety of clinical settings: the community (6 indices), nursing home (2 indices), and hospital (8 indices). At least 1 measure of transportability (the index is accurate in more than 1 population) was tested for all but 3 indices. By our measures, no study was free from potential bias. Although 13 indices had C statistics of 0.70 or greater, none of the indices had C statistics of 0.90 or greater. Only 2 indices were independently validated by investigators who were not involved in the index's development. Conclusion We identified several indices for predicting overall mortality in different patient groups; future studies need to independently test their accuracy in heterogeneous populations and their ability to improve clinical outcomes before their widespread use can be recommended. JAMA. 2012; 307(2):182-192 www.jama.com

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据