SynthesisBMC family practice2012
Diagnostic accuracy of the STRATIFY clinical prediction rule for falls: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Validation of the World Falls Guidelines risk stratification algorithm. A systematic review.Age and ageing · 2026Pooled it
- The diagnostic and predictive accuracy of the PRISMA-7 screening tool for frailty in older adults: a systematic review, and meta-analysis.BMC geriatrics · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for suspected ACL and meniscal tears of the knee.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2016Pooled it
- Is the Timed Up and Go test a useful predictor of risk of falls in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC geriatrics · 2014Pooled it
- Explainable AI reveals temporal risk pathways in fall prediction: Extracting clinical insights from multi-horizon machine learning models.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Fall risk and falls count by functional status in patients with hip fracture.BMC geriatrics · 2026Observational
- Validation of the stratify scale for the prediction of falls among hospitalized adults in a tertiary hospital in Colombia: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Testing of Reliability and Validity of the Peninsula Health Falls Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT) in Acute Care: A Cross-Sectional Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Article
- Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Article
- The diagnostic and predictive accuracy of the PRISMA-7 screening tool for frailty in older adults: A systematic review protocol.HRB open research · 2020Article
- Exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medicines as indicators of high-risk prescriptions in the elderly.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2017Article
- Fall prevention: is the STRATIFY tool the right instrument in Italian Hospital inpatient? A retrospective observational study.BMC health services research · 2017Observational
- Speed, resistance, and unexpected accelerations modulate feed forward and feedback control during a novel weight bearing task.Gait & posture · 2017Article
- Predictive Performance of a Fall Risk Assessment Tool for Community-Dwelling Older People (FRAT-up) in 4 European Cohorts.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2016Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe STRATIFY score is a clinical prediction rule (CPR) derived to assist clinicians to identify patients at risk of falling. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the overall diagnostic accuracy of the STRATIFY rule across a variety of clinical settings.
methodsA literature search was performed to identify all studies that validated the STRATIFY rule. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. A STRATIFY score of ≥2 points was used to identify individuals at higher risk of falling. All included studies were combined using a bivariate random effects model to generate pooled sensitivity and specificity of STRATIFY at ≥2 points. Heterogeneity was assessed using the variance of logit transformed sensitivity and specificity.
resultsSeventeen studies were included in our meta-analysis, incorporating 11,378 patients. At a score ≥2 points, the STRATIFY rule is more useful at ruling out falls in those classified as low risk, with a greater pooled sensitivity estimate (0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.80) than specificity (0.57, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.69). The sensitivity analysis which examined the performance of the rule in different settings and subgroups also showed broadly comparable results, indicating that the STRATIFY rule performs in a similar manner across a variety of different 'at risk' patient groups in different clinical settings.
conclusionThis systematic review shows that the diagnostic accuracy of the STRATIFY rule is limited and should not be used in isolation for identifying individuals at high risk of falls in clinical practice.
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.