Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27448280›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Predicting Falls and When to Intervene in Older People: A Multilevel Logistical Regression Model and Cost Analysis.

Matthew I Smith, Simon de Lusignan, David Mullett, Ana Correa, Jermaine Tickner, Simon Jones

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Sussex Integrated Dataset (SID) Data Resource Profile.International journal of population data science · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Matthew I SmithDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Simon de LusignanDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
David MullettDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Ana CorreaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Jermaine TicknerInner North West London Integrated Care Programme, London, United Kingdom.
Simon JonesDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFalls are the leading cause of injury in older people. Reducing falls could reduce financial pressures on health services. We carried out this research to develop a falls risk model, using routine primary care and hospital data to identify those at risk of falls, and apply a cost analysis to enable commissioners of health services to identify those in whom savings can be made through referral to a falls prevention service.

methodsMultilevel logistical regression was performed on routinely collected general practice and hospital data from 74751 over 65's, to produce a risk model for falls. Validation measures were carried out. A cost-analysis was performed to identify at which level of risk it would be cost-effective to refer patients to a falls prevention service. 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a Monte Carlo Model (MCM), allowing us to adjust for uncertainty in the estimates of these variables.

resultsA risk model for falls was produced with an area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.87. The risk cut-off with the highest combination of sensitivity and specificity was at p = 0.07 (sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 78%). The risk cut-off at which savings outweigh costs was p = 0.27 and the risk cut-off with the maximum savings was p = 0.53, which would result in referral of 1.8% and 0.45% of the over 65's population respectively. Above a risk cut-off of p = 0.27, costs do not exceed savings.

conclusionsThis model is the best performing falls predictive tool developed to date; it has been developed on a large UK city population; can be readily run from routine data; and can be implemented in a way that optimises the use of health service resources. Commissioners of health services should use this model to flag and refer patients at risk to their falls service and save resources.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsAccidental FallsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleModels, StatisticalRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID27448280
PMCPMC4957756

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.