Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37299939›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

The Methods of Fall Detection: A Literature Review.

Nishat Tasnim Newaz, Eisuke Hanada

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.7field-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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Innovative Technologies: Optimizing Nursing Practice.Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nishat Tasnim NewazDepartment of Information Science and Engineering, Saga University, Saga 8408502, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4268-7344
Eisuke HanadaFaculty of Science and Engineering, Saga University, Saga 8408502, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-6718-0101
Saga University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fall Detection Systems (FDS) are automated systems designed to detect falls experienced by older adults or individuals. Early or real-time detection of falls may reduce the risk of major problems. This literature review explores the current state of research on FDS and its applications. The review shows various types and strategies of fall detection methods. Each type of fall detection is discussed with its pros and cons. Datasets of fall detection systems are also discussed. Security and privacy issues related to fall detection systems are also considered in the discussion. The review also examines the challenges of fall detection methods. Sensors, algorithms, and validation methods related to fall detection are also talked over. This work found that fall detection research has gradually increased and become popular in the last four decades. The effectiveness and popularity of all strategies are also discussed. The literature review underscores the promising potential of FDS and highlights areas for further research and development.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsResearch DesignAgedHumansPrivacybiomedical signalscloudfall detection systems (FDS)fall detection typesFDS future scopeIoTkinematic signalsmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37299939
PMCPMC10255727
OpenAlexW4379086656

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.