Age grouping patterns and guideline age of the elderly in Korean Medical Journals

Roh, Yong Kyun; Yoo, Young Hoon

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As the elderly population grows and increasing average life expectancy, medical needs and utilization by elderly people are rapid increase in recent years. It is thus essential that elderly people are included in clinical studies. There are also needed the standardization of age grouping and guideline of the elderly for the purpose of relative review between studies. And a study must include what age was used as a cut off value. So we set out to discover age grouping, cut off ages and guideline age of the elderly in two major Korean medical journals.
METHODS
We examined all original research papers in all the issues of the Korean Journal of Medicine (KJM), and the Journal of The Korean Surgical Society (JKSS) between January 1995 and December 1997. We excluded animal works and papers concerned with special age (children, soldiers). Of the remaining 931 (386 KJM/545 JKSS) papers, we reviewed how many papers included elderly people in them, age grouping and regularity, age group intervals, cut off age, and of the specific to the elderly papers, what age was used as guideline age of the elderly.
RESULTS
Of the reviewed 931 papers, included above 60-year were 701 (75.3%), excluded were 166 (17.8%), and no age limit was set in 64 (6.9%) papers. Of the 701 papers that included above 60 years, no age grouping were 349 (49.8%), and 352 (50.2%) had age grouping. Among them, 341 papers used regular intervals, while 11 papers used irregular intervals. Of the 341 regular age interval papers, five year interval were 4, ten year were 322, fifteen year were 2, and twenty year were 13. The cut off age as a specific value were 118, and cut off as a group of ages were 223. Ten papers were specifically about elderly people. Of these papers, the guidelines of the elderly were 60-year in 6, and 65-year in 4 papers.
CONCLUSION
Many Korean medical papers included above 60-year people. But near half of them had no age grouping, and no age limit sets were 6.9%. And there were mixed use of 60 and 65 years for guideline of the elderly. So more elderly people should be included in future clinical studies. The standardization of age grouping and guideline of the elderly are also needed.