Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29396590›Full record

ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2018

[Evaluation of a simple screening tool for ambulant fall prevention].

M Knobe, P Rasche, L Rentemeister, C Bliemel, B Bücking, L C Bollheimer, H-C Pape

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

M KnobeKlinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Deutschland. mknobe@ukaachen.de.
P RascheLehrstuhl und Institut für Arbeitswissenschaft (IAW), RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland.
L RentemeisterKlinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Deutschland.
C BliemelKlinik für Unfall‑, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH, Marburg, Deutschland.
B BückingKlinik für Unfall‑, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH, Marburg, Deutschland.
L C BollheimerLehrstuhl für Altersmedizin der RWTH Aachen mit Klinik für Innere Medizin und Geriatrie, Franziskushospital Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland.
H-C PapeKlinik für Traumatologie, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn individual's risk of falling is generally difficult to detect and it is likely to be underestimated. Thus, preventive measures are challenging and they demand sufficient integration and implementation into aftercare and outpatient management. The Aachen Falls Prevention Scale (AFPS) is a quick and easy tool for patient-driven fall risk assessment. Older adults' risk of falling is identified in a suitable manner and they then have the opportunity to independently assess and monitor their risk of falling.

objectivesThe aim of the current study was to evaluate the AFPS as a simple screening tool in geriatric trauma patients via the identification of influencing factors, e.g. objective or subjective fall risk, fear of falling (FOF) and demographic data. In this context, we investigated older adults' willingness to take part in special activities concerning fall prevention.

methodsRetrospectively, all patients over 70 years of age who received in-hospital fracture treatment between July 2014 and April 2016 were analyzed at a level I trauma center. After identification of 884 patients, participants completed a short questionnaire (47 questions, yes/no, Likert scale) comprising the AFPS. A history of falls in the past year was considered an indicator of a balance disorder. In addition, ambulant patients were invited to participate between July and August 2016.

resultsIn total, 201 patients (mean 80.4 years, range 63-97 years) performed a self-assessment based on the AFPS. After steps 1 and 2 of the AFPS had been completed, 95 (47%) participants rated their subjective risk of falling as high (more than 5 points). Of the participants 84 (42%) were objectively classified as "fallers" with significant effects on their AFPS evaluation and rating of their subjective risk of falling. Furthermore, 67% of the participants identified a general practitioner as their main contact person, and 43% of the respondents viewed the AFPS as a beneficial screening tool in fall risk evaluation (8% negative attitudes). Only 12% of the participants could imagine using the AFPS app version as a feasible option.

conclusionIt would be advantageous to pretest at-risk individuals in their environment using a simple self-assessment approach, with the main purpose of identifying potential balance problems. With this approach, cost savings in the healthcare system are possible, combined with a higher health-related quality of life in the geriatric population.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsMass ScreeningQuality of LifeAgedHumansRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentBalance assessmentFall riskFear of fallingFragility fractureGeriatric trauma

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.