Minimum geriatric screening tools to detect common geriatric problems
The Journal of nutrition, health and aging, ISSN: 1279-7707, Vol: 12, Issue: 5, Page: 348-352
2008
- 36Citations
- 63Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations36
- Citation Indexes36
- 36
- CrossRef29
- Captures63
- Readers63
- 63
Article Description
Background : Health services for the elderly are becoming increasingly important in industrialized nations, and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is one of the procedures designed to improve the health of this sector of the population. In 2003 a survey among Belgian geriatricians showed that despite the interest of the geriatric teams for comprehensive geriatric assessment, it was not used enough. Considering these results, as a first step, screening tools were proposed for the main geriatric domains (Minimum Geriatric Screening Tools, MGST). Objectives : To assess the feasibility of a MGST within the teams of geriatric units and to evaluate the efficacy of a MGST on the detection rate of the geriatric problems of admitted subjects. Design : Prospective observational survey. Methods : The teams were first asked to encode active geriatric problems suspected according to their conventional assessment. Then, in a second phase, a complete MGST was completed by the same team within the first week after admission. Results : Three hundred and twenty six registrations from 33 centres were available. Mean (±SD) number of screened geriatric problems was 1.5±1.2 without MGST and 4.7±1.7 (p< 0.0001) using the MGST. Except for the assessment for the risk of falls, the MGST leads to a better screening for the seven other main geriatric domains (functional, continence, cognition, depression, nutrition, pain, social). Conclusions : An improvement associated with the use of simple minimal geriatric tools to screen geriatric problems was evident. This approach has additional value for education and quality assurance.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1279770723020262; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02982666; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=44649115199&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18443718; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02982666; http://www.springerlink.com/index/pdf/10.1007/BF02982666; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1279770723020262; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/BF02982666; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02982666
Springer Nature
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know