ArticleAtencion primaria2010
[Can we prevent falls in the elderly from primary care?].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Evaluations and Interventions on Fall Risk: A Scoping Review.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2019Article
- Falls and fractures in the elderly with sinus node disease: the impact of pacemaker implantation.Cardiology research and practice · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the effectiveness of multifactorial intervention by Primary Care in the prevention of falls in the elderly who had fallen the year before.
designIntervention study with a control group.
settingThree clinics in a rural area. SUBJECTS: 224 patients > or = 65 years, independent for mobility (113 in the intervention (IG) and 111 in the control (GC) group.
interventionsIntervention Group. INITIAL ASSESSMENT: 1) Demographic data questionnaire, number, circumstances and consequences of falls, comorbidity and drugs. 2) Oriented examination. 3) Home risks assessment.
interventionsreferred to cardiology if arrhythmia or bradycardia, referred for eye examination if changes in acute vision, recommendation for systems support if gait or balance problems, postural measures if orthostatic hypotension, behavioural measures in urinary incontinence and recommendations to modify home risks. CONTROL GROUP: Questionnaire on: demographic data, number, circumstances and consequences of falls and medication use. They received normal medical care.
resultsAt one year 44% of the IG and 33% in the CG fell again (P=0.123). In the sub-group with more than one fall at the beginning of the study, 63% in the IG, and 56% in CG fell again (P=0.599). There were serious consequences in 6% of the IG compared to 14% in the CG (P=0.277).
conclusionsMultifactorial intervention from primary care is not effective in reducing falls or for reducing the severity of their consequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.