ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2011
Comparison of different strategies of referral to a fall clinic: how to achieve an optimal casemix?
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Differing approaches to falls and fracture prevention between Australia and Colombia.Clinical interventions in aging · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledOBJECTIVE To study the potential differences in patient characteristics between two referral methods to a fall clinic, specifically: case-finding of patients admitted to an emergency department because of a fall, compared to direct referral to the fall clinic via the general practitioner.
designCross-sectional study.
settingFall clinics in two university teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.
participantsThree hundred community-dwelling older people aged 65 years or over currently attending the fall clinics in Nijmegen (Group 1, n=154) and in Amsterdam (Group 2, n=146). MEASUREMENTS: Patients were referred by a general practitioner (Group 1) or were selected using the Carefall Triage Instrument (CTI) after visiting the emergency department (Group 2). In all patients, modifiable risk factors for recurrent falls were assessed.
resultsGroup 1 had less modifiable risk factors for falling (a mean of 4 (SD 1.6) vs. a mean of 5 (SD 1.5) in Group 2, p < 0.001). Compared to Group 2, Group 1 had more prevalent " recurrent falling (≥ 2 falls)" (p=0.001) and "assisted living in homes for the aged" (p=0.037). "Fear of falling", "mobility and balance problems", "home hazards" and "osteoporosis" were significantly less prevalent in Group 1.
conclusionThis study suggests that patients referred to a multidisciplinary fall prevention clinic by their general practitioner have a different risk profile than those selected by case finding using the CTI. These differences have consequences for the reach of secondary care for fall-preventive interventions and will probably influence the effectiveness and efficiency of a fall prevention program.
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.