ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Predicting Falls in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Multisite Study.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFall represents one of the highest concerns in the healthcare system, especially in medical rehabilitation settings. However, there is a lack of instruments for the assessment of risk falls in the context of musculoskeletal rehabilitation.
methodsThis retrospective multisite study aimed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of four fall risk assessment tools (the Functional Independence Measure, the Fall Risk Assessment, the Schmid Fall Risk Assessment Tool, and the ePA-AC) in predicting falls in patients admitted to musculoskeletal rehabilitation in Swiss inpatient facilities.
resultsThe data relative to 6970 individuals (61.5% females) were analyzed and 685 (9.83% of patients) fall events were registered. The area under the curve (AUC) relative to the Functional Independence Measure was 0.689, 0.66 for the Fall Risk Assessment, 0.641 for the Schmid Fall Risk Assessment Tool, and 0.675 for the ePA-AC. Among the four tools, the Functional Independence Measure had an acceptable discriminatory power in distinguishing between significant events (i.e., patients' falls) and non-events (no falls).
conclusionNone of the assessed tools showed highly satisfying levels of statistical sensitivity or sensibility. However, the Functional Independence Measure could be used to assess the fall risk assessment in musculoskeletal rehabilitation settings, although with some caution, since this questionnaire was not designed for this diagnostic purpose. We strongly suggest urgently designing a tool for risk assessment that is specific to this population and the rehabilitative setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.