ArticleJMIR aging2019
The Aachen Falls Prevention Scale: Multi-Study Evaluation and Comparison.
Article in JMIR aging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive ability of a self-rated fall risk assessment tool in community-dwelling older women.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Article
- Unsupervised Assessment of Balance and Falls Risk Using a Smartphone and Machine Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Descriptive Evaluation and Accuracy of a Mobile App to Assess Fall Risk in Seniors: Retrospective Case-Control Study.JMIR aging · 2020Article
- Mobile health assessments of geriatric elements in older patients with atrial fibrillation: The Mobile SAGE-AF Study (M-SAGE).Cardiovascular digital health journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFall risk assessment is a time-consuming and resource-intensive activity. Patient-driven self-assessment as a preventive measure might be a solution to reduce the number of patients undergoing a full clinical fall risk assessment.
objectiveThe aim of this study was (1) to analyze test accuracy of the Aachen Falls Prevention Scale (AFPS) and (2) to compare these results with established fall risk assessment measures identified by a review of systematic reviews.
methodsSensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating curves (ROC) of the AFPS were calculated based on data retrieved from 2 independent studies using the AFPS. Comparison with established fall risk assessment measures was made by conducting a review of systematic reviews and corresponding meta-analysis. Electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that reviewed fall risk assessment measures between the years 2000 and 2018. The review of systematic reviews was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. The Revised Assessment of Multiple SysTemAtic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) was used to assess the methodological quality of reviews. Sensitivity, specificity, and ROC were extracted from each review and compared with the calculated values of the AFPS.
resultsSensitivity, specificity, and ROC of the AFPS were evaluated based on 2 studies including a total of 259 older adults. Regarding the primary outcome of the AFPS subjective risk of falling, pooled sensitivity is 57.0% (95% CI 0.467-0.669) and specificity is 76.7% (95% CI 0.694-0.831). If 1 out of the 3 subscales of the AFPS is used to predict a fall risk, pooled sensitivity could be increased up to 90.0% (95% CI 0.824-0.951), whereas mean specificity thereby decreases to 50.0% (95% CI 0.42-0.58). A systematic review for fall risk assessment measures produced 1478 articles during the study period, with 771 coming from PubMed, 530 from Web of Science, and 177 from EMBASE. After eliminating doublets and assessing full text, 8 reviews met the inclusion criteria. All were of sufficient methodological quality (R-AMSTAR score ≥22). A total number of 9 functional or multifactorial fall risk assessment measures were extracted from identified reviews, including Timed Up and Go test, Berg Balance Scale, Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment, St Thomas's Risk Assessment Tool in Falling Elderly, and Hendrich II Fall Risk Model. Comparison of these measures with pooled sensitivity and specificity of the AFPS revealed a sufficient quality of the AFPS in terms of a patient-driven self-assessment tool.
conclusionsIt could be shown that the AFPS reaches a test accuracy comparable with that of the established methods in this initial investigation. However, it offers the advantage that the users can perform the self-assessment independently at home without involving trained health care professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.