Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38979796›Full record

SynthesisAge and ageing2024

A systematic review of fall prediction models for community-dwelling older adults: comparison between models based on research cohorts and models based on routinely collected data.

Noman Dormosh, Bob van de Loo, Martijn W Heymans, Martijn C Schut, Stephanie Medlock, Natasja M van Schoor, Nathalie van der Velde, Ameen Abu-Hanna

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Functional reserve mitigates cognitive-motor dual-task costs in older adults: insights from age, cohort, and behavioural strategies.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Fall Prevention and Geriatric Nursing.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

8 authors.

Noman DormoshDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3152-6200
Bob van de LooDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn W HeymansDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn C SchutDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Stephanie MedlockDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Natasja M van SchoorDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nathalie van der VeldeAmsterdam Public Health, Aging and Later Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ameen Abu-HannaDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development 848017004Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research 628011026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrediction models can identify fall-prone individuals. Prediction models can be based on either data from research cohorts (cohort-based) or routinely collected data (RCD-based). We review and compare cohort-based and RCD-based studies describing the development and/or validation of fall prediction models for community-dwelling older adults.

methodsMedline and Embase were searched via Ovid until January 2023. We included studies describing the development or validation of multivariable prediction models of falls in older adults (60+). Both risk of bias and reporting quality were assessed using the PROBAST and TRIPOD, respectively.

resultsWe included and reviewed 28 relevant studies, describing 30 prediction models (23 cohort-based and 7 RCD-based), and external validation of two existing models (one cohort-based and one RCD-based). The median sample sizes for cohort-based and RCD-based studies were 1365 [interquartile range (IQR) 426-2766] versus 90 441 (IQR 56 442-128 157), and the ranges of fall rates were 5.4% to 60.4% versus 1.6% to 13.1%, respectively. Discrimination performance was comparable between cohort-based and RCD-based models, with the respective area under the receiver operating characteristic curves ranging from 0.65 to 0.88 versus 0.71 to 0.81. The median number of predictors in cohort-based final models was 6 (IQR 5-11); for RCD-based models, it was 16 (IQR 11-26). All but one cohort-based model had high bias risks, primarily due to deficiencies in statistical analysis and outcome determination.

conclusionsCohort-based models to predict falls in older adults in the community are plentiful. RCD-based models are yet in their infancy but provide comparable predictive performance with no additional data collection efforts. Future studies should focus on methodological and reporting quality.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsIndependent LivingAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleModels, StatisticalPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsaccidental fallselectronic health recordsgeriatric medicineolder peopleprediction modelsprospective cohortsrisk stratification toolsroutinely collected datasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38979796
PMCPMC11231951

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.