ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
A novel score for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people: a derivation and validation study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- "Falls in older people receiving home healthcare services at armed forces hospital Southern Region: prevalence, associated factors, and consequent injuries".BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- "How did I fall?"A narrative analysis of fall experiences among older adults in China.BMC public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly detection of patients at risk of falling is crucial. This study was designed to develop and internally validate a novel risk score to classify patients at risk of falls.
methodsA total of 334 older people from a fall clinic in a medical center were selected. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used to minimize the potential concatenation of variables measured from the same patient and the overfitting of variables. A logistic regression model for 1-year fall prediction was developed for the entire dataset using newly identified relevant variables. Model performance was evaluated using the bootstrap method, which included measures of overall predictive performance, discrimination, and calibration. To streamline the assessment process, a scoring system for predicting 1-year fall risk was created.
resultsWe developed a new model for predicting 1-year falls, which included the FRQ-Q1, FRQ-Q3, and single-leg standing time (left foot). After internal validation, the model showed good discrimination (C statistic, 0.803 [95% CI 0.749-0.857]) and overall accuracy (Brier score, 0.146). Compared to another model that used the total FRQ score instead, the new model showed better continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI) [0.468 (0.314-0.622), P < 0.01], categorical NRI [0.507 (0.291-0.724), P < 0.01; cutoff: 0.200-0.800], and integrated discrimination [0.205 (0.147-0.262), P < 0.01]. The variables in the new model were subsequently incorporated into a risk score. The discriminatory ability of the scoring system was similar (C statistic, 0.809; 95% CI, 0.756-0.861; optimism-corrected C statistic, 0.808) to that of the logistic regression model at internal bootstrap validation.
conclusionsThis study resulted in the development and internal verification of a scoring system to classify 334 patients at risk for falls. The newly developed score demonstrated greater accuracy in predicting falls in elderly people than did the Timed Up and Go test and the 30-Second Chair Sit-Stand test. Additionally, the scale demonstrated superior clinical validity for identifying fall risk.
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.