IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0174053.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

External validity of randomized controlled trials in older adults, a systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Floor J van Deudekom
  • Iris Postmus
  • Danielle J van der Ham
  • Alexander B Pothof
  • Karen Broekhuizen
  • Gerard J Blauw
  • Simon P Mooijaart

Abstract

Background: To critically assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) it is important to know what older adults have been enrolled in the trials. The aim of this systematic review is to study what proportion of trials specifically designed for older patients report on somatic status, physical and mental functioning, social environment and frailty in the patient characteristics. Methods: PubMed was searched for articles published in 2012 and only RCTs were included. Articles were further excluded if not conducted with humans or only secondary analyses were reported. A random sample of 10% was drawn. The current review analyzed this random sample and further selected trials when the reported mean age was ≥ 60 years. We extracted geriatric assessments from the population descriptives or the in- and exclusion criteria. Results: In total 1396 trials were analyzed and 300 trials included. The median of the reported mean age was 66 (IQR 63–70) and the median percentage of men in the trials was 60 (IQR 45–72). In 34% of the RCTs specifically designed for older patients somatic status, physical and mental functioning, social environment or frailty were reported in the population descriptives or the in- and exclusion criteria. Physical and mental functioning was reported most frequently (22% and 14%). When selecting RCTs on a mean age of 70 or 80 years the report of geriatric assessments in the patient characteristics was 46% and 85% respectively but represent only 5% and 1% of the trials. Conclusion: Somatic status, physical and mental functioning, social environment and frailty are underreported even in RCTs specifically designed for older patients published in 2012. Therefore, it is unclear for clinicians to which older patients the results can be applied. We recommend systematic to transparently report these relevant characteristics of older participants included in RCTs.

Suggested Citation

  • Floor J van Deudekom & Iris Postmus & Danielle J van der Ham & Alexander B Pothof & Karen Broekhuizen & Gerard J Blauw & Simon P Mooijaart, 2017. "External validity of randomized controlled trials in older adults, a systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-8, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174053
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174053
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174053&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0174053?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174053. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.