ArticleEuropean journal of ageing2019
Validity of the Falls Risk for Older People in the Community (FROP-Com) tool to predict falls and fall injuries for older people presenting to the emergency department after falling.
Article in European journal of ageing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aims of this study were to (1) externally validate the accuracy of the Falls Risk for Older People in the Community (FROP-Com) falls risk assessment tool in predicting falls and (2) undertake initial validation of the accuracy of the FROP-Com to predict injurious falls (requiring medical attention) in people aged ≥ 60 years presenting to emergency departments (EDs) after falling. Two hundred and thirteen participants (mean age = 72.4 years; 59.2% women) were recruited (control group of a randomised controlled trial). A FROP-Com assessment was completed at a home visit within 2 weeks of ED discharge. Data on falls and injurious falls requiring medical attention were collected via monthly falls calendars for the next 12 months. Predictive accuracy was evaluated using sensitivity and specificity of a high-risk FROP-Com classification (score ≥ 19) in predicting a fall and injurious falls requiring medical attention. Fifty per cent of participants fell, with 60.4% of falls requiring medical attention. Thirty-two per cent were classified as high, 49% as moderate and 19% low falls risk. Low sensitivity was achieved for the FROP-Com high-risk classification for predicting falls (43.4%) and injurious falls (34.4%), although specificity was high (79.4% and 78.6%, respectively). Despite the FROP-Com's low predictive accuracy, the high fall rate and high falls risk of the sample suggest that older people who fall, present to ED and are discharged home are at high risk of future falls. In high-falls-risk populations such as in this study, the FROP-Com is not a valid tool for classifying risk of falls or injurious falls. Its potential value may instead be in identifying risk factors for falling to direct tailoring of falls prevention interventions to reduce future falls.
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.