Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20959965›Full record

Trial reportOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2011

Multifactorial evaluation and treatment of persons with a high risk of recurrent falling was not cost-effective.

G M E E Peeters, M W Heymans, O J de Vries, L M Bouter, P Lips, M W van Tulder

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Cost-effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation and exercise in preventing injurious falls among older home-dwelling women: findings from an RCT.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2016
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cost-effectiveness of a multifactorial fall prevention program in nursing homes.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2013
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G M E E PeetersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M W Heymans
O J de Vries
L M Bouter
P Lips
M W van Tulder
EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

summaryThis study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of multifactorial evaluation and treatment of fall risk factors in community-dwelling older persons at high risk of falling. The intervention and usual care groups did not differ in fall risk or costs. The multifactorial approach was not cost-effective compared to usual care in this group.

introductionInternational guidelines recommend multifactorial evaluation and tailored treatment of risk factors to reduce falling in older persons. The cost-effectiveness may be enhanced in high-risk persons. Our study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of multifactorial evaluation and treatment of fall risk factors in community-dwelling older persons at high risk of recurrent falling.

methodsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. Participants (≥65 years) with a high risk of recurrent falling were randomised into an intervention (n = 106) and usual care group (n = 111). The intervention consisted of multifactorial assessment and treatment of fall risk factors. Clinical outcomes were proportions of fallers and utility during 1 year. Costs were measured using questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after baseline and valued using cost prices, if available, and guideline prices. Differences in costs and cost-effectiveness were analysed using bootstrapping. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves were presented.

resultsDuring 1 year, 52% and 56% of intervention and usual care participants reported at least one fall, respectively. The clinical outcome measures did not differ between the two groups. The mean costs were Euro 7,740 (SD 9,129) in the intervention group and Euro 6,838 (SD 8,623) in the usual care group (mean difference Euro 902, bootstrapped 95% CI: -1,534 to 3,357). Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves indicated that multifactorial evaluation and treatment of fall risk factors was not cost-effective compared with usual care.

conclusionsMultifactorial evaluation and treatment of persons with a high risk of recurrent falling was not cost-effective compared to usual care.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient CareRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSecondary PreventionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID20959965
PMCPMC3106152
OpenAlexW2118821473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.