Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36028912›Full record

SynthesisTrials2022

Factors associated with reporting of the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) core outcome set domains in randomized trials on falls in older people: a citation analysis and correlational study.

Alexandra M B Korall, Dawn Steliga, Sarah E Lamb, Stephen R Lord, Rasheda Rabbani, Kathryn M Sibley

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Alexandra M B KorallGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Third Floor, Chown Building, 753 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3B 0V8, Canada.
Dawn SteligaRady Faculty of Health Sciences, Interdisciplinary Health Program, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Sarah E LambCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Stephen R LordNeuroscience Research Australia, New South Wales, Australia.
Rasheda RabbaniGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Third Floor, Chown Building, 753 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3B 0V8, Canada.
Kathryn M SibleyGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Third Floor, Chown Building, 753 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3B 0V8, Canada. Kathryn.Sibley@umanitoba.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6212-5437

Funding

Manitoba Medical Services Foundation 08-2017-09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCore outcome sets are advocated as a means to standardize outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reduce selective outcome reporting. In 2005, the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) published a core outcome set identifying five domains that should be measured and reported, at a minimum, in RCTs or meta-analysis on falls in older people. As reporting of all five domains of the ProFaNE core outcome set has been minimal, we set out to investigate factors associated with reporting of the ProFaNE core outcome set domains in a purposeful sample of RCTs on falls in older people.

methodsWe conducted a systematic citation analysis to identify all reports of RCTs focused on falls in older people that cited the ProFaNE core outcome set between October 2005 and July 2021. We abstracted author-level, study-level, and manuscript-level data and whether each domain of the ProFaNE core outcome set was reported. We used penalized LASSO regression to identify factors associated with the mean percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported.

resultsWe identified 85 eligible reports of RCTs. Articles were published between 2007 and 2021, described 75 unique RCTs, and were authored by 76 unique corresponding authors. The percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported ranged from 0 to 100%, with a median of 40% and mean (standard deviation, SD) of 52.2% (25.1). RCTs funded by a non-industry source reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs without a non-industry funding source (estimated mean difference = 17.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-33.2). RCTs examining exercise (15.4%; 95% CI 1.9-28.9) or multi-component/factorial (17.4%; 95% CI 4.7-30.1) interventions each reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs examining other intervention types.

conclusionsWe found that RCTs funded by at least one non-industry source, examining exercise or multi-component/factorial interventions, reported the highest percentages of ProFaNE core outcome set domains. Findings may help inform strategies to increase the impact of the ProFaNE core outcome set. Ultimately, this may lead to enhanced knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of interventions to prevent and/or manage falls in older people.

Indexed as

ExercisePR-SET DomainsAgedHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAccidental fallsAdherenceCore outcome setFall injuriesImplementation fidelityOlder peoplePhysical activityPsychological consequences of fallsQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID36028912
PMCPMC9419335

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.