Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35380638›Full record

ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2022

Development of the ADFICE_IT Models for Predicting Falls and Recurrent Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Pooled Analyses of European Cohorts With Special Attention to Medication.

Bob van de Loo, Lotta J Seppala, Nathalie van der Velde, Stephanie Medlock, Michael Denkinger, Lisette Cpgm de Groot, Rose-Anne Kenny, Frank Moriarty, Dietrich Rothenbacher, Bruno Stricker and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Bob van de LooAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Epidemiology and Data Science, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4228-6401
Lotta J SeppalaAmsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9197-1424
Nathalie van der VeldeAmsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6477-6209
Stephanie MedlockAmsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michael DenkingerInstitute for Geriatric Research, Ulm University at Agaplesion Bethesda Clinic, Ulm, Germany.
Lisette Cpgm de GrootDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Rose-Anne KennyTILDA, Department of Medical Gerontology, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Frank MoriartyDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9838-3625
Dietrich RothenbacherInstitute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3563-2791
Bruno StrickerDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
André UitterlindenDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ameen Abu-HannaAmsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn W HeymansAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Epidemiology and Data Science, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Natasja van SchoorAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Epidemiology and Data Science, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus MC · NLAgaplesion Bethesda Klinik · DERoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IETrinity College Dublin · IEUniversität Ulm · DEWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

European Commission DG XIIEuropean Union 2005121HSRD VA CDA 10-014Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation KB-15-004-003Ministry of Science, Baden-Württemberg, and the German Research Foundation RO2606/14-1Netherlands Consortium Healthy AgeingNew Cohorts of young old in the 21st century 480-10-014Office of the Minister for Health and ChildrenZonMw 848017004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of fall prevention strategies requires detection of high-risk patients. Our goal was to develop prediction models for falls and recurrent falls in community-dwelling older adults and to improve upon previous models by using a large, pooled sample and by considering a wide range of candidate predictors, including medications.

methodsHarmonized data from 2 Dutch (LASA, B-PROOF) and 1 German cohort (ActiFE Ulm) of adults aged ≥65 years were used to fit 2 logistic regression models: one for predicting any fall and another for predicting recurrent falls over 1 year. Model generalizability was assessed using internal-external cross-validation.

resultsData of 5 722 participants were included in the analyses, of whom 1 868 (34.7%) endured at least 1 fall and 702 (13.8%) endured a recurrent fall. Positive predictors for any fall were: educational status, depression, verbal fluency, functional limitations, falls history, and use of antiepileptics and drugs for urinary frequency and incontinence; negative predictors were: body mass index (BMI), grip strength, systolic blood pressure, and smoking. Positive predictors for recurrent falls were: educational status, visual impairment, functional limitations, urinary incontinence, falls history, and use of anti-Parkinson drugs, antihistamines, and drugs for urinary frequency and incontinence; BMI was a negative predictor. The average C-statistic value was 0.65 for the model for any fall and 0.70 for the model for recurrent falls.

conclusionCompared with previous models, the model for recurrent falls performed favorably while the model for any fall performed similarly. Validation and optimization of the models in other populations are warranted.

Indexed as

Independent LivingUrinary IncontinenceAgedCohort StudiesHumansProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsAccidental fallsFall-risk-increasing drugsIndividual participant dataPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID35380638
PMCPMC9255686
OpenAlexW4226030515

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.