BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are localized injuries to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both, and are common in older and immobile people, people with diabetes, vascular disease, or malnutrition, as well as those who require intensive or palliative care. People with pressure ulcers often suffer from severe pain and exhibit social avoidance behaviours. The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers involves strategies to optimize hydration, circulation, and nutrition. Adequate nutrient intake can reduce the risk factor of malnutrition and promote wound healing in existing pressure ulcers. However, it is unclear which nutrients help prevent and treat pressure ulcers. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of nutritional interventions (special diets, supplements) for preventing and treating pressure ulcers in people with or without existing pressure ulcers compared to standard diet or other nutritional interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was in May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with or without existing pressure ulcers, that compared nutritional interventions aimed at preventing or treating pressure ulcers with standard diet or other types of nutritional interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome for prevention studies was the proportion of participants who developed new (incident) pressure ulcers. For treatment studies, our primary outcomes were time to complete pressure ulcer healing, number of people with healed pressure ulcers, size and depth of pressure ulcers, and rate of pressure ulcer healing. Secondary outcomes were side effects, costs, health-related quality of life and acceptability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 RCTs with 7920 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from 6993 participants. Pressure ulcer prevention Eleven studies (with 12 arms) compared six types of nutritional interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants developing a pressure ulcer (energy, protein and micronutrient supplements 248 per 1000, standard diet 269 per 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 3 studies, 1634 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard diet, protein supplements may result in little to no difference in pressure ulcer incidence (protein 21 per 1000, standard diet 28 per 1000; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4 studies, 4264 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the gastrointestinal side effects of these supplements (protein 109 per 1000, standard diet 155 per 1000; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 7.96; 2 studies, 140 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidants; L-carnitine, L-leucine, calcium, magnesium and vitamin D; EPA, GLA and antioxidants; disease-specific supplements on pressure ulcer incidence when compared to standard diet (1 study each; very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons). Pressure ulcer treatment Twenty-four studies (with 27 arms) compared 10 types of nutritional interventions or supplements for treatment of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may slightly increase the number of healed pressure ulcers (energy, protein and micronutrients 366 per 1000, standard diet 253 per 1000; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.85; 3 studies, 577 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on gastrointestinal side effects. Compared to standard diet, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidant supplements on pressure ulcer healing (pressure ulcer area: mean difference (MD) 2 cm² smaller, 95% CI 4.54 smaller to 0.53 larger; 2 studies, 71 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on side effects of these supplements is very uncertain. Compared to standard diet, supplements with arginine and micronutrients may not increase the number of healed pressure ulcers, but the evidence suggests a slight reduction in pressure ulcer area (MD 15.8% lower, 95% CI 25.11 lower to 6.48 lower; 2 studies, 231 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about changes in pressure ulcer scores, acceptability, and side effects of these supplements. Compared to placebo, collagen supplements probably improve the mean change in pressure ulcer area (MD 1.81 cm² smaller, 95% CI 3.36 smaller to 0.26 smaller; 1 study, 74 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on side effects. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of vitamin C, different doses of arginine; EPA, GLA (special dietary fatty acids) and antioxidants; protein; a specialized amino acid mixture; ornithine alpha-ketoglutarate and zinc supplements on pressure ulcer healing (1 or 2 studies each; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of nutritional interventions with various compositions for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment are uncertain. There may be little or no difference compared to standard nutrition or placebo. Nutritional supplements may not increase gastrointestinal side effects, but the evidence is very uncertain. Larger studies with similar nutrient compositions would reduce these uncertainties. No study investigated the effects of special diets (e.g. protein-enriched diet, vegetarian diet) on pressure ulcer incidence and healing.
BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of hospitalised older adults experience hospital-associated functional decline. Exercise interventions that promote in-hospital activity may prevent deconditioning and thereby maintain physical function during hospitalisation. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise interventions for acutely hospitalised older medical inpatients on functional ability, quality of life (QoL), participant global assessment of success and adverse events compared to usual care or a sham-control intervention.
SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was May 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating an in-hospital exercise intervention in people aged 65 years or older admitted to hospital with a general medical condition. We excluded people admitted for elective reasons or surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. independence with activities of daily living; 2. functional mobility; 3. new incidence of delirium during hospitalisation; 4. QoL; 5. number of falls during hospitalisation; 6. medical deterioration during hospitalisation and 7. participant global assessment of success. Our minor outcomes were 8. death during hospitalisation; 9. musculoskeletal injuries during hospitalisation; 10. hospital length of stay; 11. new institutionalisation at hospital discharge; 12. hospital readmission and 13. walking performance. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each major outcome. We categorised exercise interventions as: rehabilitation-related activities (interventions designed to increase physical activity or functional recovery, but did not follow a specified exercise protocol); structured exercise (interventions that included an exercise intervention protocol but did not include progressive resistance training); and progressive resistance exercise (interventions that included an element of progressive resistance training).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies (nine rehabilitation-related activity interventions, six structured exercise interventions and nine progressive resistance exercise interventions) with 7511 participants. All studies compared exercise interventions to usual care; two studies, in addition to usual care, used sham interventions. Mean ages ranged from 73 to 88 years, and 58% of participants were women. Several studies were at high risk of bias. The most common domain assessed at high risk of bias was measurement of the outcome, and five studies (21%) were at high risk of bias arising from the randomisation process. Exercise may have no clinically important effect on independence in activities of daily living at discharge from hospital compared to controls (16 studies, 5174 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies used the Barthel Index (scale: 0 to 100, higher scores representing greater independence). Mean scores at discharge in the control groups ranged from 42 to 96 points, and independence in activities of daily living was 1.8 points better (0.43 worse to 4.12 better) with exercise compared to controls. The minimally clinical important difference (MCID) is estimated to be 11 points. We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on functional mobility at discharge from the hospital compared to controls (8 studies, 2369 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three studies used the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) (scale: 0 to 12, higher scores representing better function) to measure functional mobility. Mean scores at discharge in the control groups ranged from 3.7 to 4.9 points on the SPPB, and the estimated effect of the exercise interventions was 0.78 points better (0.02 worse to 1.57 better). A change of 1 point on the SPPB represents an MCID. We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on the incidence of delirium during hospitalisation compared to controls (7 trials, 2088 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of delirium during hospitalisation was 88/1091 (81 per 1000) in the control group compared with 70/997 (73 per 1000; range 47 to 114) in the exercise group (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41). Exercise interventions may result in a small clinically unimportant improvement in QoL at discharge from the hospital compared to controls (4 studies, 875 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mean QoL on the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) visual analogue scale (VAS) (scale: 0 to 100, higher scores representing better QoL) ranged between 48.9 and 64.7 in the control group at discharge from the hospital, and QoL was 6.04 points better (0.9 better to 11.18 better) with exercise. A change of 10 points on the EQ-5D VAS represents an MCID. No studies measured participant global assessment of success. Exercise interventions did not affect the risk of falls during hospitalisation (moderate-certainty evidence). The incidence of falls was 31/899 (34 per 1000) in the control group compared with 31/888 (34 per 1000; range 20 to 57) in the exercise group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.65). We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on the incidence of medical deterioration during hospitalisation (very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of medical deterioration in the control group was 101/1417 (71 per 1000) compared with 96/1313 (73 per 1000; range 44 to 120) in the exercise group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68). Subgroup analyses by different intervention categories and by the use of a sham intervention were not meaningfully different from the main analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise may make little difference to independence in activities of daily living or QoL, but probably does not result in more falls in older medical inpatients. We are uncertain about the effect of exercise on functional mobility, incidence of delirium and medical deterioration. Certainty of evidence was limited by risk of bias and inconsistency. Future primary research on the effect of exercise on acute hospitalisation could focus on more consistent and uniform reporting of participant's characteristics including their baseline level of functional ability, as well as exercise dose, intensity and adherence that may provide an insight into the reasons for the observed inconsistencies in findings.
BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people, and its impact on society is substantial. After surgery, people require rehabilitation to help them recover. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is where rehabilitation is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, supervised by a geriatrician, rehabilitation physician or other appropriate physician. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in either inpatient or ambulatory care settings, for older people with hip fracture.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (October 2020), and two trials registers (November 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of post-surgical care using multidisciplinary rehabilitation of older people (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture. The primary outcome - 'poor outcome' - was a composite of mortality and decline in residential status at long-term (generally one year) follow-up. The other 'critical' outcomes were health-related quality of life, mortality, dependency in activities of daily living, mobility, and related pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently performed study selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: The 28 included trials involved 5351 older (mean ages ranged from 76.5 to 87 years), usually female, participants who had undergone hip fracture surgery. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity in the trial interventions and populations. Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items, such as blinding-related performance and detection biases. We summarise the findings for three comparisons below. Inpatient rehabilitation: multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Multidisciplinary rehabilitation was provided primarily in an inpatient setting in 20 trials. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation probably results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status, generally requiring institutional care) at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.98; 13 studies, 3036 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 347 people with hip fracture with poor outcome in 1000 people followed up between 6 and 12 months, this equates to 41 (95% CI 7 to 69) fewer people with poor outcome after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Expressed in terms of numbers needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), 25 patients (95% CI 15 to 100) would need to be treated to avoid one 'poor outcome'. Subgroup analysis by type of multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention showed no evidence of subgroup differences. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital but the confidence interval does not exclude a small increase in the number of deaths (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.04; 11 studies, 2455 participants; low-certainty evidence). A similar finding applies at 4 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 18 studies, 3973 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer people with poorer mobility at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 5 studies, 1085 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have little confidence in the findings for marginally better quality of life after multidisciplinary rehabilitation (1 study). The same applies to the mixed findings of some or no difference from multidisciplinary rehabilitation on dependence in activities of daily living at 1 to 4 months' follow-up (measured in various ways by 11 studies), or at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (13 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. Ambulatory setting: supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Three trials tested this comparison in 377 people mainly living at home. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of little to no between-group difference in poor outcome (death or move to a higher level of care or inability to walk) at one year (3 studies); quality of life at one year (1 study); in mortality at 4 or 12 months (2 studies); in independence in personal activities of daily living (1 study); in moving permanently to a higher level of care (2 studies) or being unable to walk (2 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. One trial tested this comparison in 240 nursing home residents. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no or minimal between-group differences at 12 months in 'poor outcome' defined as dead or unable to walk; or in mortality at 4 months or 12 months. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of no between-group differences in dependency at 4 weeks or at 12 months, or in quality of life, inability to walk or pain at 12 months.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In a hospital inpatient setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that rehabilitation after hip fracture surgery, when delivered by a multidisciplinary team and supervised by an appropriate medical specialist, results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status). There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital and at 4 to 12 months; however, it may also result in slightly more. There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may reduce the numbers of people with poorer mobility at 12 months. No conclusions can be drawn on other outcomes, for which the evidence is of very low certainty. The generally very low-certainty evidence available for supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation means that we are very uncertain whether the findings of little or no difference for all outcomes between the intervention and usual care is true. Given the prevalent clinical emphasis on early discharge, we suggest that research is best orientated towards early supported discharge and identifying the components of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation to optimise patient recovery within hospital and the components of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, including social care, subsequent to hospital discharge.
BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a major injury that causes significant problems for affected individuals and their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment. The outcomes of these individuals after surgery are poorer than for those without dementia. It is unclear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES: (a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. (b) To assess for people with dementia the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies that are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery, compared to usual care.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 16 October 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation for people with dementia after hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We synthesised data only if we considered the trials to be sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials with a total of 555 participants. Three trials compared models of enhanced care in the inpatient setting with conventional care. Two trials compared an enhanced care model provided in inpatient settings and at home after discharge with conventional care. Two trials compared geriatrician-led care in-hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. None of the interventions were designed specifically for people with dementia, therefore the data included in the review were from subgroups of people with dementia or cognitive impairment participating in randomised controlled trials investigating models of care for all older people following hip fracture. The end of follow-up in the trials ranged from the point of acute hospital discharge to 24 months after discharge. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger trials, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Furthermore, there were some important differences in baseline characteristics of participants between the experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low. The effect estimates for almost all comparisons were very imprecise, and the overall certainty for most results was very low. There were no data from any study for our primary outcome of health-related quality of life. There was only very low certainty for our other primary outcome, activities of daily living and functional performance, therefore we were unable to draw any conclusions with confidence. There was low-certainty that enhanced care and rehabilitation in-hospital may reduce rates of postoperative delirium (odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.22, 2 trials, n = 141) and very low-certainty associating it with lower rates of some other complications. There was also low-certainty that, compared to orthopaedic-led management, geriatrician-led management may lead to shorter hospital stays (mean difference 4.00 days, 95% CI 3.61 to 4.39, 1 trial, n = 162).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence that some of the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care used in the included trials may show benefits over usual care for preventing delirium and reducing length of stay for people with dementia who have been treated for hip fracture. However, the certainty of these results is low. Data were available from only a small number of trials, and the certainty for all other results is very low. Determining the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients should be a research priority.
BACKGROUND: Aging populations are at increased risk of postoperative complications. New methods to provide care for older people recovering from surgery may reduce surgery-related complications. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been shown to improve some outcomes for medical patients, such as enabling them to continue living at home, and has been proposed to have positive impacts for surgical patients. CGA is a coordinated, multidisciplinary collaboration that assesses the medical, psychosocial and functional capabilities and limitations of an older person, with the goal of establishing a treatment plan and long-term follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of CGA interventions compared to standard care on the postoperative outcomes of older people admitted to hospital for surgical care.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two clinical trials registers on 13 January 2017. We also searched grey literature for additional citations.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of people undergoing surgery aged 65 years and over comparing CGA with usual surgical care and reporting any of our primary (mortality and discharge to an increased level of care) or secondary (length of stay, re-admission, total cost and postoperative complication) outcomes. We excluded studies if the participants did not receive a complete CGA, did not undergo surgery, and if the study recruited participants aged less than 65 years or from a setting other than an acute care hospital.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and assessed certainty of evidence from identified articles. We expressed dichotomous treatment effects as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD).
MAIN RESULTS: We included eight randomised trials, seven recruited people recovering from a hip fracture (N = 1583) and one elective surgical oncology trial (N = 260), conducted in North America and Europe. For two trials CGA was done pre-operatively and postoperatively for the remaining. Six trials had adequate randomization, five had low risk of performance bias and four had low risk of detection bias. Blinding of participants was not possible. All eight trials had low attrition rates and seven reported all expected outcomes.CGA probably reduces mortality in older people with hip fracture (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.05; 5 trials, 1316 participants, I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention reduces discharge to an increased level of care (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.92; 5 trials, 941 participants, I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence).Length of stay was highly heterogeneous, with mean difference between participants allocated to the intervention and the control groups ranging between -12.8 and 8.3 days. CGA probably leads to slightly reduced length of stay (4 trials, 841 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention probably makes little or no difference in re-admission rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 trials, 741 participants, I² = 37%; moderate-certainty evidence).CGA probably slightly reduces total cost (1 trial, 397 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference for major postoperative complications (2 trials, 579 participants, low-certainty evidence) and delirium rates (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94, 3 trials, 705 participants, I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that CGA can improve outcomes in people with hip fracture. There are not enough studies to determine when CGA is most effective in relation to surgical intervention or if CGA is effective in surgical patients presenting with conditions other than hip fracture.
BACKGROUND: Falls in care facilities and hospitals are common events that cause considerable morbidity and mortality for older people. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to reduce the incidence of falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (August 2017); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2017, Issue 8); and MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trial registers to August 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing falls in older people in residential or nursing care facilities, or hospitals.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author screened abstracts; two review authors screened full-text articles for inclusion. Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We calculated rate ratios (RaR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for rate of falls and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for outcomes such as risk of falling (number of people falling). We pooled results where appropriate. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five new trials (77,869 participants) were included in this update. Overall, we included 95 trials (138,164 participants), 71 (40,374 participants; mean age 84 years; 75% women) in care facilities and 24 (97,790 participants; mean age 78 years; 52% women) in hospitals. The majority of trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains, mostly relating to lack of blinding. With few exceptions, the quality of evidence for individual interventions in either setting was generally rated as low or very low. Risk of fracture and adverse events were generally poorly reported and, where reported, the evidence was very low-quality, which means that we are uncertain of the estimates. Only the falls outcomes for the main comparisons are reported here.Care facilitiesSeventeen trials compared exercise with control (typically usual care alone). We are uncertain of the effect of exercise on rate of falls (RaR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; 2002 participants, 10 studies; I² = 76%; very low-quality evidence). Exercise may make little or no difference to the risk of falling (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; 2090 participants, 10 studies; I² = 23%; low-quality evidence).There is low-quality evidence that general medication review (tested in 12 trials) may make little or no difference to the rate of falls (RaR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35; 2409 participants, 6 studies; I² = 93%) or the risk of falling (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 5139 participants, 6 studies; I² = 48%).There is moderate-quality evidence that vitamin D supplementation (4512 participants, 4 studies) probably reduces the rate of falls (RaR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95; I² = 62%), but probably makes little or no difference to the risk of falling (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; I² = 42%). The population included in these studies had low vitamin D levels.Multifactorial interventions were tested in 13 trials. We are uncertain of the effect of multifactorial interventions on the rate of falls (RaR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.18; 3439 participants, 10 studies; I² = 84%; very low-quality evidence). They may make little or no difference to the risk of falling (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.05; 3153 participants, 9 studies; I² = 42%; low-quality evidence).HospitalsThree trials tested the effect of additional physiotherapy (supervised exercises) in rehabilitation wards (subacute setting). The very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect of additional physiotherapy on the rate of falls (RaR 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.34; 215 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0%), or whether it reduces the risk of falling (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.93; 83 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0%).We are uncertain of the effects of bed and chair sensor alarms in hospitals, tested in two trials (28,649 participants) on rate of falls (RaR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence) or risk of falling (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.24; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).Multifactorial interventions in hospitals may reduce rate of falls in hospitals (RaR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.01; 44,664 participants, 5 studies; I² = 52%). A subgroup analysis by setting suggests the reduction may be more likely in a subacute setting (RaR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 3747 participants, 2 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of multifactorial interventions on the risk of falling (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.09; 39,889 participants; 3 studies; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In care facilities: we are uncertain of the effect of exercise on rate of falls and it may make little or no difference to the risk of falling. General medication review may make little or no difference to the rate of falls or risk of falling. Vitamin D supplementation probably reduces the rate of falls but not risk of falling. We are uncertain of the effect of multifactorial interventions on the rate of falls; they may make little or no difference to the risk of falling.In hospitals: we are uncertain of the effect of additional physiotherapy on the rate of falls or whether it reduces the risk of falling. We are uncertain of the effect of providing bed sensor alarms on the rate of falls or risk of falling. Multifactorial interventions may reduce rate of falls, although subgroup analysis suggests this may apply mostly to a subacute setting; we are uncertain of the effect of these interventions on risk of falling.
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multi-dimensional, multi-disciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic process conducted to determine the medical, mental, and functional problems of older people with frailty so that a co-ordinated and integrated plan for treatment and follow-up can be developed. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the effectiveness and resource use of CGA for older adults admitted to hospital, and to use these data to estimate its cost-effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers on 5 October 2016; we also checked reference lists and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials that compared inpatient CGA (delivered on geriatric wards or by mobile teams) versus usual care on a general medical ward or on a ward for older people, usually admitted to hospital for acute care or for inpatient rehabilitation after an acute admission.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the most important outcomes. For this update, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from trialists, and we conducted a survey of trialists to obtain details of delivery of CGA. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), or standardised mean differences (SMDs), and combined data using fixed-effect meta-analysis. We estimated cost-effectiveness by comparing inpatient CGA versus hospital admission without CGA in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, cost per life year (LY) gained, and cost per life year living at home (LYLAH) gained.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials recruiting 13,766 participants across nine, mostly high-income countries. CGA increases the likelihood that patients will be alive and in their own homes at 3 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.10; 16 trials, 6799 participants; high-certainty evidence), results in little or no difference in mortality at 3 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; 21 trials, 10,023 participants; high-certainty evidence), decreases the likelihood that patients will be admitted to a nursing home at 3 to 12 months follow-up (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; 14 trials, 6285 participants; high-certainty evidence) and results in little or no difference in dependence (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04; 14 trials, 6551 participants; high-certainty evidence). CGA may make little or no difference to cognitive function (SMD ranged from -0.22 to 0.35 (5 trials, 3534 participants; low-certainty evidence)). Mean length of stay ranged from 1.63 days to 40.7 days in the intervention group, and ranged from 1.8 days to 42.8 days in the comparison group. Healthcare costs per participant in the CGA group were on average GBP 234 (95% CI GBP -144 to GBP 605) higher than in the usual care group (17 trials, 5303 participants; low-certainty evidence). CGA may lead to a slight increase in QALYs of 0.012 (95% CI -0.024 to 0.048) at GBP 19,802 per QALY gained (3 trials; low-certainty evidence), a slight increase in LYs of 0.037 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.073), at GBP 6305 per LY gained (4 trials; low-certainty evidence), and a slight increase in LYLAH of 0.019 (95% CI -0.019 to 0.155) at GBP 12,568 per LYLAH gained (2 trials; low-certainty evidence). The probability that CGA would be cost-effective at a GBP 20,000 ceiling ratio for QALY, LY, and LYLAH was 0.50, 0.89, and 0.47, respectively (17 trials, 5303 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Older patients are more likely to be alive and in their own homes at follow-up if they received CGA on admission to hospital. We are uncertain whether data show a difference in effect between wards and teams, as this analysis was underpowered. CGA may lead to a small increase in costs, and evidence for cost-effectiveness is of low-certainty due to imprecision and inconsistency among studies. Further research that reports cost estimates that are setting-specific across different sectors of care are required.
BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common mental disorder, which is distressing and has serious adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. Prevention of delirium is desirable from the perspective of patients and carers, and healthcare providers. It is currently unclear, however, whether interventions for preventing delirium are effective.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group’s Specialized Register on 4 December 2015 for all randomised studies on preventing delirium. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Central (The Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science core collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO meta register of trials, ICTRP.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multi- component non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data independently, with any disagreements settled by consensus. The primary outcome was incidence of delirium; secondary outcomes included duration and severity of delirium, institutional care at discharge, quality of life and healthcare costs. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes; and between group mean differences and standard deviations for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. Fourteen trials were placebo-controlled, 15 evaluated a delirium prevention intervention against usual care, and 10 compared two different interventions. Thirty-two studies were conducted in patients undergoing surgery, the majority in orthopaedic settings. Seven studies were conducted in general medical or geriatric medicine settings.We found multi-component interventions reduced the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; seven studies; 1950 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Effect sizes were similar in medical (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92; four studies; 1365 participants) and surgical settings (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.85; three studies; 585 participants). In the subgroup of patients with pre-existing dementia, the effect of multi-component interventions remains uncertain (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; one study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors are effective in preventing delirium compared to placebo (RR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.17 to 2.62; two studies, 113 participants; very low-quality evidence).Three trials provide no clear evidence of an effect of antipsychotic medications as a group on the incidence of delirium (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.59; 916 participants; very low-quality evidence). In a pre-planned subgroup analysis there was no evidence for effectiveness of a typical antipsychotic (haloperidol) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.60; two studies; 516 participants, low-quality evidence). However, delirium incidence was lower (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52; one study; 400 participants, moderate-quality evidence) for patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that melatonin or melatonin agonists reduce delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.89; three studies, 529 participants; low-quality evidence).There is moderate-quality evidence that Bispectral Index (BIS)-guided anaesthesia reduces the incidence of delirium compared to BIS-blinded anaesthesia or clinical judgement (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85; two studies; 2057 participants).It is not possible to generate robust evidence statements for a range of additional pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions due to small numbers of trials, of variable methodological quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence supporting multi-component interventions to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients. There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors, antipsychotic medication or melatonin reduce the incidence of delirium. Using the Bispectral Index to monitor and control depth of anaesthesia reduces the incidence of postoperative delirium. The role of drugs and other anaesthetic techniques to prevent delirium remains uncertain.
Within patient-centered care (PCC), the individual is viewed as an active member of the healthcare team. While there has been recent interest in conducting systematic reviews to examine the effectiveness of PCC interventions, various studies fall short in explaining the type of intervention most effective in producing significant changes to desired outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the characteristics of PCC interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing the quality of care and performance of self-care behaviours. A systematic review of 40 studies that addressed PCC interventions, included samples over the age of 18 years, and were published between 1995 and 2014 was performed. Descriptive statistics were used to delineate study, participant, and intervention characteristics. Results suggest PCC-based interventions are not effective when delivered to individuals living with chronic illnesses.
BACKGROUND: Falls are a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in older people and the risk of falling is exacerbated by mental health conditions. Existing reviews have focused on people with dementia and cognitive impairment, but not those with other mental health conditions or in mental health settings. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions for older people with mental health problems being cared for across all settings.
METHODS: A systematic review of fall prevention interventions for older people with mental health conditions. We undertook electronic database and lateral searches to identify studies reporting data on falls or fall related injuries. Searches were initially conducted in February 2011 and updated in November 2012 and October 2013; no date restrictions were applied. Studies were assessed for risk of bias. Due to heterogeneity results were not pooled but are reported narratively.
RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs and four uncontrolled studies met the inclusion criteria; 11 involved single interventions and ten multifactorial. Evidence relating to fall reduction was inconsistent. Eight of 14 studies found a reduction in fallers (statistically significant in five), and nine of 14 reported a significant reduction in rate or number of falls. Four studies found a non-significant increase in falls. Multifactorial, multi-disciplinary interventions and those involving exercise, medication review and increasing staff awareness appear to reduce the risk of falls but evidence is mixed and study quality varied. Changes to the environment such as increased supervision or sensory stimulation to reduce agitation may be promising for people with dementia but further evaluation is needed. Most of the studies were undertaken in nursing and residential homes, and none in mental health hospital settings.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a dearth of falls research in mental health settings or which focus on patients with mental health problems despite the high number of falls experienced by this population group. This review highlights the lack of robust evidence to support practitioners to implement practices that prevent people with mental health problems from falling.
Pressure ulcers are localized injuries to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both, and are common in older and immobile people, people with diabetes, vascular disease, or malnutrition, as well as those who require intensive or palliative care. People with pressure ulcers often suffer from severe pain and exhibit social avoidance behaviours. The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers involves strategies to optimize hydration, circulation, and nutrition. Adequate nutrient intake can reduce the risk factor of malnutrition and promote wound healing in existing pressure ulcers. However, it is unclear which nutrients help prevent and treat pressure ulcers. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the benefits and harms of nutritional interventions (special diets, supplements) for preventing and treating pressure ulcers in people with or without existing pressure ulcers compared to standard diet or other nutritional interventions.
SEARCH METHODS:
We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was in May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with or without existing pressure ulcers, that compared nutritional interventions aimed at preventing or treating pressure ulcers with standard diet or other types of nutritional interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome for prevention studies was the proportion of participants who developed new (incident) pressure ulcers. For treatment studies, our primary outcomes were time to complete pressure ulcer healing, number of people with healed pressure ulcers, size and depth of pressure ulcers, and rate of pressure ulcer healing. Secondary outcomes were side effects, costs, health-related quality of life and acceptability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 33 RCTs with 7920 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from 6993 participants. Pressure ulcer prevention Eleven studies (with 12 arms) compared six types of nutritional interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants developing a pressure ulcer (energy, protein and micronutrient supplements 248 per 1000, standard diet 269 per 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 3 studies, 1634 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard diet, protein supplements may result in little to no difference in pressure ulcer incidence (protein 21 per 1000, standard diet 28 per 1000; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4 studies, 4264 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the gastrointestinal side effects of these supplements (protein 109 per 1000, standard diet 155 per 1000; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 7.96; 2 studies, 140 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidants; L-carnitine, L-leucine, calcium, magnesium and vitamin D; EPA, GLA and antioxidants; disease-specific supplements on pressure ulcer incidence when compared to standard diet (1 study each; very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons). Pressure ulcer treatment Twenty-four studies (with 27 arms) compared 10 types of nutritional interventions or supplements for treatment of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may slightly increase the number of healed pressure ulcers (energy, protein and micronutrients 366 per 1000, standard diet 253 per 1000; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.85; 3 studies, 577 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on gastrointestinal side effects. Compared to standard diet, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidant supplements on pressure ulcer healing (pressure ulcer area: mean difference (MD) 2 cm² smaller, 95% CI 4.54 smaller to 0.53 larger; 2 studies, 71 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on side effects of these supplements is very uncertain. Compared to standard diet, supplements with arginine and micronutrients may not increase the number of healed pressure ulcers, but the evidence suggests a slight reduction in pressure ulcer area (MD 15.8% lower, 95% CI 25.11 lower to 6.48 lower; 2 studies, 231 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about changes in pressure ulcer scores, acceptability, and side effects of these supplements. Compared to placebo, collagen supplements probably improve the mean change in pressure ulcer area (MD 1.81 cm² smaller, 95% CI 3.36 smaller to 0.26 smaller; 1 study, 74 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on side effects. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of vitamin C, different doses of arginine; EPA, GLA (special dietary fatty acids) and antioxidants; protein; a specialized amino acid mixture; ornithine alpha-ketoglutarate and zinc supplements on pressure ulcer healing (1 or 2 studies each; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The benefits of nutritional interventions with various compositions for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment are uncertain. There may be little or no difference compared to standard nutrition or placebo. Nutritional supplements may not increase gastrointestinal side effects, but the evidence is very uncertain. Larger studies with similar nutrient compositions would reduce these uncertainties. No study investigated the effects of special diets (e.g. protein-enriched diet, vegetarian diet) on pressure ulcer incidence and healing.
