Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23547708›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2013

Instruments for assessing the risk of falls in acute hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Marta Aranda-Gallardo, Jose M Morales-Asencio, Jose C Canca-Sanchez, Silvia Barrero-Sojo, Claudia Perez-Jimenez, Angeles Morales-Fernandez, Margarita Enriquez de Luna-Rodriguez, Ana B Moya-Suarez, Ana M Mora-Banderas

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
25.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 154 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Predicting geriatric falls following an episode of emergency department care: a systematic review.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Next Frontier of Remote Patient Monitoring: Hospital at Home.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The role of the pregnancy heart team in clinical practice.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Development of an Assessment Scale for the Risk of Falling in Pregnant Women.Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare · 2022
    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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marta Aranda-Gallardo
Jose M Morales-Asencio
Jose C Canca-Sanchez
Silvia Barrero-Sojo
Claudia Perez-Jimenez
Angeles Morales-Fernandez
Margarita Enriquez de Luna-Rodriguez
Ana B Moya-Suarez
Ana M Mora-Banderas
Agencia Sanitaria Costa del Sol · ESUniversidad de Málaga · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFalls are a serious problem for hospitalized patients, reducing the duration and quality of life. It is estimated that over 84% of all adverse events in hospitalized patients are related to falls. Some fall risk assessment tools have been developed and tested in environments other than those for which they were developed with serious validity discrepancies. The aim of this review is to determine the accuracy of instruments for detecting fall risk and predicting falls in acute hospitalized patients.

methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. Main databases, related websites and grey literature were searched. Two blinded reviewers evaluated title and abstracts of the selected articles and, if they met inclusion criteria, methodological quality was assessed in a new blinded process. Meta-analyses of diagnostic ORs (DOR) and likelihood (LH) coefficients were performed with the random effects method. Forest plots were calculated for sensitivity and specificity, DOR and LH. Additionally, summary ROC (SROC) curves were calculated for every analysis.

resultsFourteen studies were selected for the review. The meta-analysis was performed with the Morse (MFS), STRATIFY and Hendrich II Fall Risk Model scales. The STRATIFY tool provided greater diagnostic validity, with a DOR value of 7.64 (4.86 - 12.00). A meta-regression was performed to assess the effect of average patient age over 65 years and the performance or otherwise of risk reassessments during the patient's stay. The reassessment showed a significant reduction in the DOR on the MFS (rDOR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.64 - 0.89, p = 0.017).

conclusionsThe STRATIFY scale was found to be the best tool for assessing the risk of falls by hospitalized acutely-ill adults. However, the behaviour of these instruments varies considerably depending on the population and the environment, and so their operation should be tested prior to implementation. Further studies are needed to investigate the effect of the reassessment of these instruments with respect to hospitalized adult patients, and to consider the real compliance by healthcare personnel with procedures related to patient safety, and in particular concerning the prevention of falls.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsAdultAgedHospitalizationHumansMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID23547708
PMCPMC3637640
OpenAlexW1991596156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.