SynthesisAge and ageing2026
Cost-effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment: systematic review of economic evaluations.
Synthesis in Age and ageing, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) can be resource-intensive as its delivery involves multidisciplinary personnel, multidimensional assessment, care planning and follow-up. The aim of this systematic review is to appraise and synthesise evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CGA across settings.
methodsFull economic evaluation studies examining CGA were searched across five databases. We included studies involving adults aged ≥65 years who were identified as living with frailty or at risk of adverse outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened studies against eligibility criteria and extracted data using a pretested extraction form. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards framework. We reported the results through narrative summaries, tables and figures.
resultsA total of 4864 studies were identified, of which 17 were included across 7 settings (11 community, 6 hospital). Of 13 cost-utility analysis studies, incremental quality-adjusted life years ranged from -0.06 to 0.54 and incremental costs ranged from €-12 744 to €29 785. The probability CGA was cost-effective ranged from 0% to 98.9% across stated willingness-to-pay thresholds (cost-effective in 5/13, not cost-effective in 7/13, 50% chance in 1/13). Two studies showed that cost-effectiveness can vary by frailty severity and residential status. The resource intensity of CGA varied, ranging from 25% (case management protocol) to 81% (comprehensive assessment). Only five studies accounted for informal caregiver costs. The reporting quality ranged from 38% to 90%.
conclusionThe cost-effectiveness of CGA remains uncertain. Variations in resource intensity of CGA, frailty severity, residential status of older adults and setting may explain this heterogeneity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO: CRD42023492586.
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.