ReviewSage open aging
Examining Medical Interventions in Older Adults with Limited Life Expectancy-Opportunities and Challenges for De-implementation.
Review in Sage open aging. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The benefits and harms of medical interventions shift as patients age, calling for re-evaluation of each intervention's appropriateness and alignment with patients' preferences. Continued use of medical interventions when harms outweigh benefits is common in older adults with limited life expectancy. This critical review aims to describe the opportunities and challenges of de-implementation in older adults with limited life expectancy, focusing on the role of patient preference and shared decision making. Findings: We describe three examples where de-implementation may be considered in older adults with limited life expectancy-cancer screening, polypharmacy, end-of-life care-and the associated de-implementation challenges. The challenges stem from the need to change established behavior and shift from age-based to life expectancy-based decision making. Existing de-implementation frameworks do not incorporate patient preferences whereas shared decision-making frameworks do not consider the challenges specific to de-implementation. Conclusions: Significant research gaps exist at the intersection of de-implementation, shared decision making, and aging research. Considerations for de-implementation would benefit from evaluating the preference sensitivity of the decision. This should be informed by the strength of evidence, the extent that the potential harms outweigh the benefits, and whether the intervention is life-sustaining where de-implementation would be irreversible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.