Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29954155›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2018

Methods for the Real-World Evaluation of Fall Detection Technology: A Scoping Review.

Robert W Broadley, Jochen Klenk, Sibylle B Thies, Laurence P J Kenney, Malcolm H Granat

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. System-level interventions for fall risk assessment, fall prevention and fall injury prevention in long-term care facilities: a scoping review.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Design of a seniors and Alzheimer's disease caring service platform.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Robert W BroadleySchool of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, M6 6PU, UK. r.broadley@edu.salford.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1890-1440
Jochen KlenkDepartment of Clinical Gerontology, Robert-Bosch-Hospital, 70376 Stuttgart, Germany. jochen.klenk@rbk.de.ORCID 0000-0002-5987-447X
Sibylle B ThiesSchool of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, M6 6PU, UK. s.thies@salford.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9889-2243
Laurence P J KenneySchool of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, M6 6PU, UK. l.p.j.kenney@salford.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2164-3892
Malcolm H GranatSchool of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, M6 6PU, UK. m.h.granat@salford.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0722-2760

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Falls in older adults present a major growing healthcare challenge and reliable detection of falls is crucial to minimise their consequences. The majority of development and testing has used laboratory simulations. As simulations do not cover the wide range of real-world scenarios performance is poor when retested using real-world data. There has been a move from the use of simulated falls towards the use of real-world data. This review aims to assess the current methods for real-world evaluation of fall detection systems, identify their limitations and propose improved robust methods of evaluation. Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria and were assessed with regard to the composition of the datasets, data processing methods and the measures of performance. Real-world tests of fall detection technology are inherently challenging and it is clear the field is in its infancy. Most studies used small datasets and studies differed on how to quantify the ability to avoid false alarms and how to identify non-falls, a concept which is virtually impossible to define and standardise. To increase robustness and make results comparable, larger standardised datasets are needed containing data from a range of participant groups. Measures that depend on the definition and identification of non-falls should be avoided. Sensitivity, precision and F-measure emerged as the most suitable robust measures for evaluating the real-world performance of fall detection systems.

Indexed as

accelerometersaccidental fallscamerasfall detectionnon-wearable sensorsperformance measuresreal-worldsignal analysiswearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID29954155
PMCPMC6068511

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.