ReviewClinical interventions in aging2013
Differing approaches to falls and fracture prevention between Australia and Colombia.
Review in Clinical interventions in aging, 2013. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Falls and fractures are major causes of morbidity and mortality in older people. More importantly, previous falls and/or fractures are the most important predictors of further events. Therefore, secondary prevention programs for falls and fractures are highly needed. However, the question is whether a secondary prevention model should focus on falls prevention alone or should be implemented in combination with fracture prevention. By comparing a falls prevention clinic in Manizales (Colombia) versus a falls and fracture prevention clinic in Sydney (Australia), the objective was to identify similarities and differences between these two programs and to propose an integrated model of care for secondary prevention of fall and fractures. A comparative study of services was performed using an internationally agreed taxonomy. Service provision was compared against benchmarks set by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and previous reports in the literature. Comparison included organization, administration, client characteristics, and interventions. Several similarities and a number of differences that could be easily unified into a single model are reported here. Similarities included population, a multidisciplinary team, and a multifactorial assessment and intervention. Differences were eligibility criteria, a bone health assessment component, and the therapeutic interventions most commonly used at each site. In Australia, bone health assessment is reinforced whereas in Colombia dizziness assessment and management is pivotal. The authors propose that falls clinic services should be operationally linked to osteoporosis services such as a "falls and fracture prevention clinic," which would facilitate a comprehensive intervention to prevent falls and fractures in older persons.
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.