Scoping review of outcomes reported in studies with older adults in the Emergency Department

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Kara Mc Loughlin, Katie Robinson
{"title":"Scoping review of outcomes reported in studies with older adults in the Emergency Department","authors":"Kara Mc Loughlin, Katie Robinson","doi":"10.1093/ageing/afaf318.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The number of older adult Emergency Department (ED) attendances is rising in line with population ageing. These ED visits are associated with adverse outcomes. Consequently, intervention studies with older adults in the ED aiming to mitigate adverse outcomes are increasing. However, there is currently no agreement on what outcomes to measure in these studies. This outcome heterogeneity has negative implications for synthesising evidence and for policy implications. To address this issue, we plan to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in studies with older adults in the ED setting. The first step in this process is to generate a long list of potential outcomes to include in the COS via a scoping review. Methods A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance and reported with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). An international trial register and 3 electronic databases were searched to locate experimental studies that recruited a population of older adults (aged 65yrs+) or in the ED. Searches and screening were completed independently by two researchers. Data was extracted using a custom data extraction template, the study design, outcomes measured, outcome tools, and measurement timepoints were recorded. Results Over 23,000 papers were screened with a full text review of 363 papers and a final inclusion of 106 papers. Outcomes were split into primary and secondary with a total of 217 in total reported across included studies (93 primary and 124 secondary outcomes). The modified Dodd taxonomy for Core Outcome Sets was utilised with 38 outcome domains used to categorise the outcomes reported. Conclusion This scoping review has highlighted the large variety of outcomes. Mapping these outcomes will inform the development of a Core Outcome Set which will have the potential to enhance future trials with this population.","PeriodicalId":7682,"journal":{"name":"Age and ageing","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Age and ageing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaf318.029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The number of older adult Emergency Department (ED) attendances is rising in line with population ageing. These ED visits are associated with adverse outcomes. Consequently, intervention studies with older adults in the ED aiming to mitigate adverse outcomes are increasing. However, there is currently no agreement on what outcomes to measure in these studies. This outcome heterogeneity has negative implications for synthesising evidence and for policy implications. To address this issue, we plan to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in studies with older adults in the ED setting. The first step in this process is to generate a long list of potential outcomes to include in the COS via a scoping review. Methods A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance and reported with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). An international trial register and 3 electronic databases were searched to locate experimental studies that recruited a population of older adults (aged 65yrs+) or in the ED. Searches and screening were completed independently by two researchers. Data was extracted using a custom data extraction template, the study design, outcomes measured, outcome tools, and measurement timepoints were recorded. Results Over 23,000 papers were screened with a full text review of 363 papers and a final inclusion of 106 papers. Outcomes were split into primary and secondary with a total of 217 in total reported across included studies (93 primary and 124 secondary outcomes). The modified Dodd taxonomy for Core Outcome Sets was utilised with 38 outcome domains used to categorise the outcomes reported. Conclusion This scoping review has highlighted the large variety of outcomes. Mapping these outcomes will inform the development of a Core Outcome Set which will have the potential to enhance future trials with this population.
急诊科老年人研究报告结果的范围综述
背景随着人口老龄化,老年人急诊科(ED)的就诊人数正在上升。这些急诊科就诊与不良后果有关。因此,针对ED老年人的旨在减轻不良后果的干预研究正在增加。然而,目前还没有就这些研究的结果达成一致。这种结果的异质性对综合证据和政策影响具有负面影响。为了解决这个问题,我们计划开发一个核心结果集(COS),用于ED环境下老年人的研究。此过程的第一步是通过范围审查生成一长串潜在结果,以包括在COS中。方法根据乔安娜布里格斯研究所方法学指南进行范围评价,采用系统评价首选报告项目和范围评价扩展元分析(PRISMA-ScR)进行报告。检索了一个国际试验注册库和3个电子数据库,以确定招募老年人(65岁以上)或在ED中的实验研究。检索和筛选由两名研究人员独立完成。使用自定义数据提取模板提取数据,记录研究设计、测量结果、结果工具和测量时间点。结果共筛选论文23000余篇,全文审阅363篇,最终纳入106篇。结果分为主要和次要,在纳入的研究中总共报告了217项结果(93项主要结果和124项次要结果)。采用改良的Dodd核心结果集分类法,38个结果域用于对报告的结果进行分类。结论:该范围综述强调了结果的多样性。绘制这些结果将为核心结果集的制定提供信息,这将有可能加强对这一人群的未来试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Age and ageing
Age and ageing 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
6.00%
发文量
796
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Age and Ageing is an international journal publishing refereed original articles and commissioned reviews on geriatric medicine and gerontology. Its range includes research on ageing and clinical, epidemiological, and psychological aspects of later life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书