Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37211363›Full record

SynthesisAge and ageing2023

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the measurement properties of concerns-about-falling instruments in older people and people at increased risk of falls.

Lisa McGarrigle, Yang Yang, Reena Lasrado, Matthew Gittins, Chris Todd

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Development of a short-form balance recovery confidence (SF-BRC) scale.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Lisa McGarrigleSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Yang YangSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Reena LasradoSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Matthew GittinsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Chris ToddSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR200299
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 16-item Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I) is widely used to assess concerns-about-falling. Variants include 7-item Short FES-I, 30-item Iconographical Falls Efficacy Scale (Icon FES) and 10-item short Icon FES. No comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis has been conducted to synthesise evidence regarding the measurement properties of these tools.

objectivesTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the measurement properties of four FES-I variants.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched systematically and articles were assessed for eligibility independently. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. The quality of measurement properties was assessed using COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties. Where possible, meta-analysis was conducted; otherwise, narrative synthesis was performed. Overall certainty of evidence was rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system approach.

resultsThe review included 58 studies investigating measurement properties of the four instruments. There was high-quality evidence to support internal consistency, reliability and construct validity of all instruments. Moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggests one-factor structure of FES-I with two underlying dimensions, one-factor structure of Short FES-I and two-factor structure of Icon FES. There was high-certainty evidence to support the responsiveness of FES-I, with further research needed for the other instruments.

conclusionThere is evidence for excellent measurement properties of all four instruments. We recommend the use of these tools with healthy older people and people at a greater risk of falls due to conditions that might affect mobility and balance.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsHealth StatusAgedChecklistHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of Resultsconcerns-about-fallingCOnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I)fear-of-fallingmeasurement propertiesolder peoplesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37211363
PMCPMC10200549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.