SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management in primary care: a systematic literature review with a descriptive mapping of team composition and assessment instruments.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Management (CGAM) is a multidimensional, interdisciplinary diagnostic process to create a coordinated care plan for vulnerable older adults by addressing their medical, psychological, and functional needs. This systematic review examines randomized trials comparing CGAM with standard care or alternative interventions for older individuals in primary care focusing on how CGAM is operationalized through professional team composition and assessment instruments rather than on effectiveness outcomes alone. Methods: A search across databases identified 3,112 studies, leading to 31 studies being included in the literature review. Eligible studies generally included participants aged 65 years and older. Across all included studies the mean age of participants was above 70 years. Results: The findings show a considerable variation in team composition and assessment instruments. While this heterogeneity reflects contextual adaptability, it also highlights the lack of shared standards for CGAM implementation in primary care. Most teams consisted of three to five members. The most frequently involved professionals were nurses/licensed practical nurses ( Discussion: The variability in team composition and assessment instruments highlights the adaptability of CGAM across healthcare settings, emphasizing the need to balance standardization with the flexibility required to meet users' needs and available resources. Based on the available evidence, future CGAM research and practice should prioritize the definition of core team components, the harmonization of assessment domains and instruments, and the development of implementation-ready models that balance standardization with local flexibility.
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.