Search

Objective: To investigate proportions of hospitalized nursing home residents during periods of increased vulnerability, ie, the first 6 months after institutionalization and the last 6 months before death, and comparing the figures between Germany and the Netherlands., Design: Systematic review, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022312506)., Setting and Participants: Newly admitted or deceased residents., Methods: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through May 3, 2022. We included all observational studies that reported the proportions of all-cause hospitalizations among German or Dutch nursing home residents during these defined vulnerable periods. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's tool. We assessed study and resident characteristics and outcome information and descriptively reported them separately for both countries., Results: We screened 1856 records for eligibility and included 9 studies published in 14 articles (Germany: 8; Netherlands: 6). One study for each country investigated the first 6 months after institutionalization. A total of 10.2% of the Dutch and 42.0% of the German nursing home residents were hospitalized during this time. Overall, 7 studies reported on in-hospital deaths, with proportions ranging from 28.9% to 29.5% for Germany and from 1.0% to 16.3% for the Netherlands. Proportions for hospitalization in the last 30 days of life ranged from 8.0% to 15.7% (Netherlands: n = 2) and from 48.6% to 58.0% (Germany: n = 3). Only German studies assessed the differences by age and sex. Although hospitalizations were less common at older ages, they were more frequent in male residents., Conclusions and Implications: During the observed periods, the proportion of nursing homes residents being hospitalized differed greatly between Germany and the Netherlands. The higher figures for Germany can probably be explained by differences in the long-term care systems. There is a lack of research, especially for the first months after institutionalization, and future studies should examine the care processes of nursing home residents following acute events in more detail., (Copyright © 2023 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate reporting of abstracts of systematic reviews according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 checklist., Study Design and Setting: A random sample of 534 systematic reviews on effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019 was assessed. Adherence of abstracts to PRISMA-A was analysed using descriptive statistics. Results were stratified by number of words, structure, and year of publication., Result: The mean score of fully reported PRISMA-A items was 5.4 of 12, with adherence varying widely between items (0% to 98.8%). Cochrane reviews received higher mean total scores than non-Cochrane reviews (6.3 vs. 5.2). Adherence to PRISMA-A increased linearly with increasing word count. In non-Cochrane reviews, authors of structured abstracts more often adhered to PRISMA-A than those of unstructured abstracts. No improvements in reporting of abstracts were found after the implementation of PRISMA-A in 2013., Conclusion: Adherence to PRISMA-A shows great potential for improvement. Therefore, authors, editors, and reviewers should be made aware of PRISMA-A by referring to it in the journal submission guidelines. As adherence to PRISMA-A increases with the number of words, journals should consider to increase the word limit to 250-300 words., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are useful tools in synthesising the available evidence, but high numbers of overlapping SRs are also discussed in the context of research waste. Although it is often claimed that the number of SRs being published is increasing steadily, there are no precise data on that. We aimed to assess trends in the epidemiology and reporting of published SRs over the last 20 years., Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed in PubMed from 2000 to 2019. From all 572,871 records retrieved, we drew a simple random sample of 4,000. The PRISMA-P definition of SRs was applied to full texts and only SRs published in English were included. Characteristics were extracted by one reviewer, with a 20% sample verified by a second person., Results: A total of 1,132 SRs published in 710 different journals were included. The estimated number of SRs indexed in 2000 was 1,432 (95% CI: 547-2,317), 5,013 (95% CI: 3,375-6,650) in 2010 and 29,073 (95% CI: 25,445-32,702) in 2019. Transparent reporting of key items increased over the years. About 7 out of 10 named their article a SR (2000-2004: 41.9% and 2015-2019: 74.4%). In 2000-2004, 32.3% of SRs were based in the UK (0% in China), in 2015-2019 24.0% were from China and 10.8% from the UK. Nearly all articles from China (94.9%) conducted a meta-analysis (overall: 58.9%). Cochrane reviews (n = 84; 7.4%) less often imposed language restrictions, but often did not report the number of records and full texts screened and did not name their article a SR (22.6% vs. 73.4%)., Conclusions: We observed a more than 20-fold increase in the number of SRs indexed over the last 20 years. In 2019, this is equivalent to 80 SRs per day. Over time, SRs got more diverse in respect to journals, type of review, and country of corresponding authors. The high proportion of meta-analyses from China needs further investigation., Study Registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/pxjrv/)., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)