ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
The Fall Risk Screening Scale Is Suitable for Evaluating Adult Patient Fall.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fractures After Inpatient Falls in a Tertiary Rehabilitation Hospital: Associated Factors, Performance of Fall-Risk Scores, and Orthopaedic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Validation and Improvement of the Saga Fall Risk Model: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2024Observational
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: This study aimed to test the feasibility of utilizing the screening tool for fall risk assessment in adult inpatient and verify its accuracy in a medical center in Taiwan. (2) Methods: This study retrospectively collected all adult fall cases among inpatients occurring in the general wards of a medical center between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. This inpatient fall risk screening scale was measured by the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. (3) Results: There were 1331 (0.4%) falls among a total of 357,395 inpatients during this period. Factors predictive of falling risk included: age, consciousness, body shift assistance, use of fall risk medications, fall history, dizziness or weakness, toileting, and impaired mobility. Using the eight-factor assessment, two was the best cutoff point for identifying the fall risk group, with area under Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) = 0.817, sensitivity = 80.93%, specificity = 73.0%, accuracy = 73.03%, and likelihood ratio = 11.48. (4) Conclusions: The accuracy of the eight-item fall risk assessment tool created for this study was validated. These results can serve as a reference for institutions to develop more effective fall risk assessment scale for inpatients, enabling clinical nurses to identify and more comprehensively assess the groups at highest risk for falling during their hospital stay.
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.