ArticleJournal of safety research2025
Older adult fall injuries and the usage of fall screener tools.
Article in Journal of safety research, 2025. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOlder adult (≥65 years) falls are common and may result in severe injuries. There is limited knowledge about what proportion of older adults who fall sustain injuries that need medical attention. Screening is the first step in helping older adults reduce their risk of falls. However, there is limited research on how well current fall screeners can predict fall injuries.
methodsPreviously collected data from community-dwelling older adults enrolled in a 13-month long study, from the AmeriSpeak Panel, were analyzed. Baseline survey included questions related to demographics, falls risk factors, and falls risk screeners (CDC's 3 Key Questions (3KQ) and Stay Independent). Weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of older adults reporting one or more falls, fall-related injuries, falls needing any medical attention, falls resulting in doctor visits, and falls resulting in Emergency Department (ED) visits and/or hospitalization by demographics and fall risk factors were calculated. Risk ratios, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated to compare the two screeners' ability to predict fall injury outcomes.
resultsAmong older adults who fell, 24.8% had an injury resulting in any medical attention, 14.5% sought treatment at a doctor's office, and 14.3% sought treatment at an ED/hospital. Sensitivity estimates for baseline 3KQ and Stay Independent screeners for falls resulting in an ED/hospital visit were 87.3% and 75.0%, respectively. Specificity estimates were 47.4% and 63.6%.
conclusionAt least one in four older adults who fell needed medical attention. The 3KQ or Stay Independent screeners identified a large proportion of older adults who sought treatment at an ED/hospital for falls. However, using them may result in a large number of false positives. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Clinicians may use these screeners to identify older adults at high fall injury risk, assess them for specific risk factors, and intervene accordingly.
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.