Trial reportBMC geriatrics2026
Clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis of comprehensive geriatric assessment models in hospitalized frail older patients in Thailand.
Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFrailty increases vulnerability to adverse outcomes and healthcare utilization. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) improves these outcomes in high-income countries, but evidence in resource-constrained settings is limited. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of two CGA models (CGA-ward; CGA-consult) compared to usual care in hospitalized frail older adults.
methodsTwo data sources from Siriraj Hospital were utilized: A randomized controlled trial comparing CGA-consult with usual care in acute medical wards (September 2019 and March 2024), and a retrospective cohort of patients receiving CGA-ward care in an intermediate care ward (April 2023-June 2024). Outcomes included health utility measured by EQ-5D-5L, Barthel Index, and hospital readmissions over 6 months. Cost-utility analyses were conducted from a societal perspective. Multivariate mixed-effects regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) estimated incremental outcomes and costs for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsAmong 226 patients, 45 received CGA-ward, 89 received CGA-consult, and 92 received usual care. CGA-ward significantly improved utility scores (incremental mean: 0.259; 95% CI: 0.140, 0.378) and functional outcomes (mean difference: 37.94; 95% CI: 26.39, 49.48) compared to usual care. From a societal perspective, CGA-consult also showed a modest improvement in utility (incremental mean: 0.093; 95% CI: 0.007, 0.179). CGA-ward and CGA-consult provided US$937 and US$552 savings per patient, with QALY gains of 0.130 and 0.047, respectively. Estimated ICERs were -US$7,208 and -US$11,745 per QALY gained, representing cost-savings for both interventions compared to usual care.
conclusionsCGA-ward represents an intermediate care (IMC) model providing improved clinical and economic benefits, supporting its implementation in resource-limited settings. CGA-consult remains a viable alternative where ward-based care is not feasible, highlighting the value of integrating CGA into routine hospital care for frail older adults.
trial registrationThe parent randomized controlled trial was registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190910002) on 10 September 2019.
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.