Using quality assessment tools to critically appraise ageing research: a guide for clinicians

Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is also valuable for all clinicians who use published research to inform their clinical practice. We present a review written specifically for the practising geriatrician. This considers how quality is defined in relation to the methodological conduct and reporting of research. Having established why quality assessment is important, we present and critique tools which are available to standardise quality assessment. We consider five study designs: RCTs, nonrandomised studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy studies. Quality assessment for each of these study designs is illustrated with an example of published cognitive research. The practical applications of the tools are highlighted, with guidance on their strengths and limitations. We signpost educational resources and offer specific advice for use of these tools. We hope that all geriatricians become comfortable with critical appraisal of published research and that use of the tools described in this review – along with awareness of their strengths and limitations – become a part of teaching, journal clubs and practice

Informing patients with acute stroke about their risk of dementia:A survey of UK healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVES: Cognitive problems following stroke are of key concern to stroke survivors. Discussing risk of dementia at the time of stroke could have implications for follow-up care. However, informing someone who has just had a stroke about risk of dementia could cause distress. This survey explored healthcare professionals’ views on discussing risk of post-stroke dementia at the time of stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This online survey was aimed at all UK healthcare professionals who care for patients with stroke. The survey was distributed via the mailing lists of seven professional stroke-related organisations and Twitter. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise findings. RESULTS: Sixty healthcare professionals completed the survey. Healthcare professionals were aware of the main risk factors associated with post-stroke dementia (e.g. previous stroke, age). Most respondents (N=34/60, 57%) thought that patients with acute stroke would benefit from knowing if they are at high risk of dementia, and 75% (N=45/60) agreed that carers would benefit. Despite this, the majority of healthcare professionals (N=47/53, 89%) who cared for patients with acute stroke in the past year said they rarely/never discussed dementia with their patients. Most respondents (N=46/60, 77%) thought risk of dementia should be discussed 1-6 months post-stroke. CONCLUSION: Although healthcare professionals felt it would be helpful to discuss risk of post-stroke dementia, in practice, most said that they rarely or never discussed this with their patients. Stroke survivors could benefit from a healthcare system that offers appropriate follow-up care and support to patients at high risk of dementia

Understanding the quality of life experiences of older or frail adults following a new dens fracture: non-surgical management in a hard collar versus early removal of collar

Introduction: In the UK, fractures of the cervical dens process in older and/or frail patients are usually managed non-surgically in a hard collar. However, hard collars can lead to complications and this management approach is now being questioned, with growing interest in maximising patients’ short-term quality-of-life. It is vital that patient’s perspectives are considered, yet there is a dearth of literature examining the aspect. To help inform wider decision-making about use of collar/no collar management of dens fractures in older/frail people, we explored older/frail people’s experience of the two management approaches and how they affected their perceived quality-of-life. Methods: We interviewed older and/or frail adults with a recent dens fracture (aged ≥65 years or with a clinical frailty score of ≥5) or their caregiver. Participants were recruited from both arms of a clinical trial comparing management using a hard collar for 12 weeks (SM) with early removal of the collar (ERC) and were interviewed following randomisation and again, 12-16 weeks later. Data were analysed using a framework approach. Results: Both participant groups (SM/ERC) reported substantial, negative QoL experiences, with the fall itself, and lack of access to care services and information being frequent major contributory factors. Many negative experiences cut across both participant groups, including pain, fatigue, diminished autonomy and reduced involvement in personally meaningful activities. However, we identified some subtle, yet discernible, ways in which using SM/ERC reinforced or alleviated (negative) QoL impacts, with the perceived benefits/burdens to using SM/ERC varying between different individuals.Conclusion: Study findings can be used to support informed decision-making about SM/ERC management of dens fractures in older/frail patients.Patient or Public Contribution: Public and patient involvement (PPI) contributors were involved in the study design, development of interview topic guides and interpretation of study findings. <br/