Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11563205›Full record

Trial reportCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2001

A randomized controlled trial of a community-based consultation service to prevent falls.

D B Hogan, F A MacDonald, J Betts, S Bricker, E M Ebly, B Delarue, T S Fung, C Harbidge, M Hunter, C J Maxwell and 1 more

Abstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  9. Modification of the home environment for the reduction of injuries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Multifactorial evaluation and treatment of persons with a high risk of recurrent falling was not cost-effective.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2011
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

D B HoganSpecialized Geriatric Services, Calgary Regional Health Authority, Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta. dhogan@ucalgary.ca
F A MacDonald
J Betts
S Bricker
E M Ebly
B Delarue
T S Fung
C Harbidge
M Hunter
C J Maxwell
B Metcalf

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultifaceted programs that combine assessment with interventions have been shown to reduce subsequent falls in some clinical trials. We tested this approach to see whether it would be effective if offered as a consultation service using existing health care resources.

methodsThe subjects of this randomized controlled trial had to be aged 65 years or more and had to have fallen within the previous 3 months. They were randomly assigned to receive either usual care or the intervention, which consisted of in-home assessment in conjunction with the development of an individualized treatment plan, including an exercise program for those deemed likely to benefit. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who fell and the rate of falling during the following year. Visits to the emergency department and admissions to hospital were secondary outcomes.

resultsOne hundred and sixty-three subjects were randomly assigned to either the control or the intervention group, and 152 provided data about their falls. There were no significant differences between the control and intervention groups in the cumulative number of falls (311 v. 241, p = 0.34), having one or more falls (79.2% v. 72.0%, p = 0.30) or in the mean number of falls (4.0 v. 3.2, p = 0.43). Analysis of secondary outcomes (health care use) also showed no significant differences between the intervention group and the control group. In the Cox regression analysis, there was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of subjects having one or more falls (p = 0.55), but there was a significantly (p < 0.001) longer time between falls in the intervention group. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, subjects with more than 2 falls in the 3 months preceding study entry who had been assigned to the intervention group were less likely to fall (p = 0.046) and had a significantly longer time between falls (p < 0.001), when compared with the group who received usual care.

interpretationThe intervention did not decrease significantly the cumulative number of falls, the likelihood of participants having at least one fall over the next year or the mean number of falls. It did increase significantly the time between falls in a survival analysis when age, sex and history of falling were used as covariates.

Indexed as

Referral and ConsultationAccidental FallsAgedChi-Square DistributionCommunity Health ServicesFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHealth Services for the AgedHumansLeisure ActivitiesMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareProportional Hazards ModelsRisk FactorsStatistics, NonparametricSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID11563205
PMCPMC81411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.