Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25685196›Full record

ArticlePatient safety in surgery2015

The 'Aachen Falls Prevention Scale' - development of a tool for self-assessment of elderly patients at risk for ground level falls.

Hans-Christoph Pape, Ulrike Schemmann, Juergen Foerster, Matthias Knobe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient safety in surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Aachen Mobility and Balance Index to measure physiological falls risk: a comparison with the Tinetti POMA Scale.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2016
    Article
  16. Review
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

4 authors.

Hans-Christoph PapeDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, University of Aachen Medical Center, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Ulrike SchemmannDivision of Physical Therapy at University of Aachen Medical Center, Aachen, Germany ; Harald Tscherne Lab for Orthopaedic Trauma, University of Aachen Medical Center, Aachen, Germany.
Juergen FoersterDivision of Physical Therapy at University of Aachen Medical Center, Aachen, Germany.
Matthias KnobeDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, University of Aachen Medical Center, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074 Aachen, Germany ; Harald Tscherne Lab for Orthopaedic Trauma, University of Aachen Medical Center, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe incidence of falls in the elderly population is difficult to determine and therefore potentially underestimated. Screening algorithms usually have in common that the evaluation is undertaken by trained individuals in a hospital setting. This leads to the inclusion of a high proportion of low-risk people and a waste of resources. It would be advantageous to pretest the individuals at risk in their own environment using a simple self-assessment approach.

methodsThe consensus process of our group of clinicians and physical therapists included: 1. a preparative literature review about risk profiles and assessment tools for ground level falls; 2. a selection of appropriate questions that cover all health aspects involved in an increased risk for falling; and 3. a selection of a simple physical test that can be used at home without the need of a health care professional. We thus searched to develop a scale that can be used by older citizen at higher risk of falling. The current manuscript summarizes the results of this review, consensus and selection process.

resultsThe literature search was undertaken between March and August 1, 2013. The selection process for the questions used (Part I) lasted between March 2013 and January 2014. Among all tests evaluated the 20 second standing test (Part II) was deemed to be safe to be performed even by an individual at risk for a fall, as it closely resembles activities of daily living. The `Aachen Falls Prevention Scale` finally uses a self-assessment tool grading falls risk on a scale of 1 to 10 by the individual itself after completion of Part I and Part II. In summary, we present a scale that might offer a self-assessment option to improve the measures of falls prevention pass for elderly citizens.

conclusionsThe introduction of the `Aachen Falls Prevention Scale` which combines a simple questionnaire with a safe and quick balance tool, meets the criteria to identify whether or not a balance problem exists - the first step in evaluation of falls risk. Further studies will have to assess the ability of an individual to estimate his or her individual falls risk on a longitudinal basis and possibly trigger the necessity for the assessment by a physician.

Indexed as

Balance assessmentCo-managed careFall preventionFractures in the elderlyGeriatric trauma centerOrthogeriatrics

Identifiers

PMID25685196
PMCPMC4328308

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.