Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35879666›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2022

Predicting falls in older adults: an umbrella review of instruments assessing gait, balance, and functional mobility.

D Beck Jepsen, K Robinson, G Ogliari, M Montero-Odasso, N Kamkar, J Ryg, E Freiberger, T Masud

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 138 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
84.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

138 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 210 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

D Beck Jepsen *Geriatric Research Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
K Robinson *Department of Health Care for Older People (HCOP), Research and Innovation, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. katie.robinson@nottingham.ac.uk.
G OgliariDepartment of Health Care for Older People (HCOP), Research and Innovation, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
M Montero-OdassoGait and Brain Lab, Parkwood Institute, SLawson Health Research Institute, London, ON, Canada.
N KamkarGait and Brain Lab, Parkwood Institute, SLawson Health Research Institute, London, ON, Canada.
J RygGeriatric Research Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
E FreibergerInstitute for Biomedicine of Aging, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
T MasudGeriatric Research Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Queen's Medical Centre · GBLawson Health Research Institute · CANottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBOdense University Hospital · DKParkwood Institute · CAUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo review the validated instruments that assess gait, balance, and functional mobility to predict falls in older adults across different settings.

methodsUmbrella review of narrative- and systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of all study types. Reviews that focused on older adults in any settings and included validated instruments assessing gait, balance, and functional mobility were included. Medical and allied health professional databases (MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched from inception to April 2022. Two reviewers undertook title, abstract, and full text screening independently. Review quality was assessed through the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS). Data extraction was completed in duplicate using a standardised spreadsheet and a narrative synthesis presented for each assessment tool.

resultsAmong 2736 articles initially identified, 31 reviews were included; 11 were meta-analyses. Reviews were primarily of low quality, thus at high risk of potential bias. The most frequently reported assessments were: Timed Up and Go, Berg Balance Scale, gait speed, dual task assessments, single leg stance, functional Reach Test, tandem gait and stance and the chair stand test. Findings on the predictive ability of these tests were inconsistent across the reviews.

conclusionsIn conclusion, we found that no single gait, balance or functional mobility assessment in isolation can be used to predict fall risk in older adults with high certainty. Moderate evidence suggests gait speed can be useful in predicting falls and might be included as part of a comprehensive evaluation for older adults.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsAgedGaitHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPhysical Functional PerformancePostural BalanceRisk AssessmentSystematic Reviews as TopicAccidental FallsFall PredictionFunctionGait; BalanceOlder AdultsUmbrella review

Identifiers

PMID35879666
PMCPMC9310405
OpenAlexW4287307658

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.