Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2024
Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): a nested cross-sectional assessment of falls risk within a cluster randomised trial.
Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04271709 (The Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-Up Study), which is not on this 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.
The Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-Up Study (NYC-SIGHT)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 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
16 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the feasibility of using the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) Falls Risk Tool Kit during community-based eye health screenings to assess falls risk of participants enrolled in the Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-Up Study (NYC-SIGHT).
methodsCross-sectional analysis of data from a 5-year prospective, cluster-randomised clinical trial conducted in affordable housing developments in New York City in adults age 40 years and older. Prescreening questions determined whether participants were at risk of falling. STEADI tests classified participants at low, moderate or high risk of falling. Multivariate logistic regression determined odds of falls risk of all enrolled participants.
results708 participants completed the eye health screening; 351 (49.6%) performed STEADI tests; mean age: 71.0 years (SD±11.3); 72.1% female; 53.6% Black, non-Hispanic, 37.6% Hispanic/Latino. Level of falls risk: 32 (9.1%) low, 188 (53.6%) moderate and 131 (37.3%) high. Individuals age >80 (OR 5.921, 95% CI (2.383 to 14.708), p=0.000), had blurry vision (OR 1.978, 95% CI (1.186 to 3.300), p=0.009), high blood pressure (OR 2.131, 95% CI (1.252 to 3.628), p=0.005), arthritis (OR 2.29876, 95% CI (1.362 to 3.875), p=0.002) or foot problems (OR 5.239, 95% CI (2.947 to 9.314), p=0.000) had significantly higher odds of falling, emergency department visits or hospitalisation due to falling.
conclusionThis study detected a significant amount of falls risk in an underserved population. The STEADI Falls Risk screening questions were easy for eye care providers to ask, were highly predictive of falls risk and may be adequate for referral to occupational health and/or physical therapy.
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.