BACKGROUND: Very elderly subjects (VES; aged 80 years or older) constitute a special population as they frequently present multiple diseases (polypathology). Results from trials on general adult populations therefore cannot be extrapolated to VES. We performed a census of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on VES published between 1990 and 2002, and carried out a descriptive and methodological analysis of these RCT/VES, comparing them with matched RCT on general adult populations (control RCT, RCT/C). METHODS: We searched for RCT/VES in two international databases (EMBASE and MEDLINE) and then manually. RCT/C were matched to RCT/VES for disease area and year of publication. The methodological quality of each RCT was assessed with Chalmers' scale. RESULTS: We identified 84 RCT/VES, 63 of which were conclusive and 21, inconclusive. Subjects were institutionalized in 48 RCT, and community dwelling in 11 RCT (unspecified in 25 RCT). Efficacy was the main criterion in 75 RCT; tolerance in 9 RCT. Twenty-six RCT were published by geriatrics journals, and 58 by general medical journals. The RCT/VES covered most of the disease areas of geriatrics. The 84 RCT/VES had a mean methodological quality score of 0.578 +/- 0.157. The matched 84 RCT/C had a mean methodological quality score of 0.592 +/- 0.116 (p = .466). The methodological quality score of RCT/VES increased with the number of included subjects (p = .004) and the year of publication (p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of RCT/VES is equivalent to that of RCT in general adult populations. Nevertheless, RCT/VES remain very scarce, and neglect certain diseases. RCT/VES and the inclusion of very elderly subjects in RCT on adults should be strongly encouraged.
BACKGROUND: Very elderly subjects (VES; aged 80 years or older) constitute a special population as they frequently present multiple diseases (polypathology). Results from trials on general adult populations therefore cannot be extrapolated to VES. We performed a census of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on VES published between 1990 and 2002, and carried out a descriptive and methodological analysis of these RCT/VES, comparing them with matched RCT on general adult populations (control RCT, RCT/C). METHODS: We searched for RCT/VES in two international databases (EMBASE and MEDLINE) and then manually. RCT/C were matched to RCT/VES for disease area and year of publication. The methodological quality of each RCT was assessed with Chalmers' scale. RESULTS: We identified 84 RCT/VES, 63 of which were conclusive and 21, inconclusive. Subjects were institutionalized in 48 RCT, and community dwelling in 11 RCT (unspecified in 25 RCT). Efficacy was the main criterion in 75 RCT; tolerance in 9 RCT. Twenty-six RCT were published by geriatrics journals, and 58 by general medical journals. The RCT/VES covered most of the disease areas of geriatrics. The 84 RCT/VES had a mean methodological quality score of 0.578 +/- 0.157. The matched 84 RCT/C had a mean methodological quality score of 0.592 +/- 0.116 (p = .466). The methodological quality score of RCT/VES increased with the number of included subjects (p = .004) and the year of publication (p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of RCT/VES is equivalent to that of RCT in general adult populations. Nevertheless, RCT/VES remain very scarce, and neglect certain diseases. RCT/VES and the inclusion of very elderly subjects in RCT on adults should be strongly encouraged.
Authors: G Abellan Van Kan; A Sinclair; S Andrieu; M Olde Rikkert; G Gambassi; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Peter Crome; Frank Lally; Antonio Cherubini; Joaquim Oristrell; Andrew D Beswick; A Mark Clarfield; Cees Hertogh; Vita Lesauskaite; Gabriel I Prada; Katarzyna Szczerbińska; Eva Topinkova; Judith Sinclair-Cohen; David Edbrooke; Gary Mills Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Kenneth E Schmader; Ralf Baron; Maija L Haanpää; John Mayer; Alec B O'Connor; Andrew S C Rice; Brett Stacey Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Elizabeth E Roughead; Lisa M Kalisch; Emmae N Ramsay; Philip Ryan; Andrew L Gilbert Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 3.921