Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32671565›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Falls in older adults with cancer: an updated systematic review of prevalence, injurious falls, and impact on cancer treatment.

S Sattar, K Haase, S Kuster, M Puts, S Spoelstra, C Bradley, T M Wildes, S Alibhai

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. A clinical study on fall risk assessment and preventive nursing in older adults with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy-a randomized controlled trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Bone health in patients with cancer: a SEOM-SEIOMM consensus review of risk factors, assessment strategies, and management approaches.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

8 authors.

S SattarCollege of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, 4400 4th Avenue, Room 108, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4T 0H8, Canada. Schroder.sattar@usask.ca.
K HaaseCollege of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
S KusterFaculty of Kinesiology & Health Studies, University of Regina, Regina, Canada.
M PutsLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
S SpoelstraKirkhof College of Nursing, Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
C BradleyLibrary, University of Regina, Regina, Canada.
T M Wildes *Division of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA.
S Alibhai *Department of Medicine, Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluations, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis update of our 2016 systematic review answers the following questions: (1) How often do older adults with cancer fall? (2) What are the predictors for falls? (3) What are the rates and predictors of injurious falls? (4) What are the circumstances and outcomes of falls? (5) How do falls in older patients affect subsequent cancer treatment? and a new research question, (6) Which fall reduction interventions are efficacious in this population?

methodsMEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched (September 2015-January 25, 2019). Eligible studies included clinical trials and cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies published in English in which the sample (or subgroup) included adults aged ≥ 60, with cancer, in whom falls were examined as an outcome.

resultsA total of 2521 titles were reviewed, 67 full-text articles were screened for eligibility, and 30 new studies were identified. The majority involved the outpatient setting (n = 19) utilizing cross-sectional method (n = 18). Sample size ranged from 21 to 17,958. Fall rates ranged from 1.52 to 3.41% per 1000 patient days (inpatient setting) and from 39%/24 months to 64%/12 months (outpatient setting). One out of the 6 research questions contributed to a new finding: one study reported that 1 in 20 older patients experienced impact on cancer treatment due to falls. No consistent predictors for falls/fall injuries and no studies on fall reduction interventions in the geriatric oncology setting were identified.

conclusionThis updated review highlights a new gap in knowledge pertaining to interventions to prevent falls. Additionally, new knowledge also emerged in terms of impact of falls on cancer treatment; however, further research may increase generalizability. Falls and fall-related injuries are common in older adults with cancer and may affect subsequent cancer treatment. Further studies on predictors of falls, subsequent impacts, and fall reduction in the oncology setting are warranted.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsAgedCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesForecastingHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrevalenceCancer treatmentFallsGeriatric oncologySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32671565

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.