ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2023
Comparison of three fall risk assessment tools in older hospitalized patients in Turkey: analysis of sensitivity and specificity.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of different fall risk screening tools for risk prediction of ophthalmology inpatients.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Haemoglobin for Fall Risk Screening in Gynaecological and Obstetric Wards: Retrospective Survey and Delphi Validation.Nursing open · 2025Article
- Thoracic trauma in the geriatric population and possible preventive measures: a retrospective analysis of 261 cases.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Nurses' perspectives on inpatient falls in a large academic hospital in South Africa.Curationis · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs a result of falls, older patients experience injury and loss of function, and their length of hospital stay and care costs increase.
aimThis study was conducted to determine fall risks and compare the sensitivity and specificity of three fall risk assessment tools.
methodsOlder patients' fall risk levels were determined according to the Itaki, Hendrich-II, and Morse tools within 2 h following their admission to the wards. A methodological design was used in the study, which included 388 hospitalized elderly patients. The mean age of the patients was 72.29 ± 5.6 years, and 57.7% were female.
resultsAccording to the ROC curve values of Sensitivity and 1-Specificity, the cut-off points for the Hendrich-II, Itaki, and Morse fall tools were accepted as 27.5, 8.5, and 6.5, respectively. According to the analysis results, the ratios of the areas under the ROC curve for the Itaki, Morse, and Hendrich-II fall tools were 0.794, 0.773, and 0.724, respectively, which were found to be statistically significant for all three tools (p ≤ 0.001).
conclusionsThe Itaki Fall Risk Tool was found to be the most sensitive one among the three instruments in assessing the fall risk of older hospitalized patients. The Itaki Fall Risk Tool was followed by the Morse and Hendrich-II tools, respectively, in terms of sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36859749What 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.