ArticleCureus2025
Predictive Ability of the Classification of Ground Level Falls As Syncopal Versus Mechanical in a Mixed Intensive Care Unit Population: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Ground-level falls are a common mechanism of trauma, especially in the elderly. They are typically classified by etiology as syncopal or mechanical, based on a report of syncope (loss of consciousness due to transient reduction of cerebral blood flow). Syncopal falls generally prompt an evaluation of the cause of syncope, but the utility of this investigation and hence this classification system remains uncertain. Methods This retrospective registry review compares outcomes for patients with falls classified as syncopal versus mechanical. The data source is the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) III database. Patients experiencing a fall documented in the history of present illness (HPI) or during the admission were included. Syncopal versus mechanical etiology was analyzed as a predictive factor for length of stay, mortality, and cardiovascular and neurologic outcomes. Significance for categorical variables was tested with a chi-square and continuous variables with a T-test. Multivariate analysis was performed with logistic regression for binary outcomes and linear regression for continuous outcomes. Results Overall mortality for mechanical falls was 384 (54.2%) versus 480 (45.2%) for syncopal (p<0.001). Conditions more common among the syncopal group include cardiac valve disorder - 151 (14.2%) versus 76 (10.7%) (p=0.038), arrhythmia - 540 (50.8%) versus 322 (45.5%) (p=0.03), orthostatic hypotension - 38 (3.6%) versus 8 (1.1%) (p=0.003), and need for pacemaker implant or revision - 87 (8.2%) versus 13 (1.8%) (p<0.001). The difference in myocardial infarction was not significant. Syncopal etiology was an independent predictor of outcomes including overall mortality - adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.75 (p=0.005), gastrointestinal bleed- (OR) 1.74 (p=<0.001), orthostatic hypotension - OR 3.34 (p=0.002), and need for pacemaker placement or revision - OR 4.0 (p<0.001). Conclusion Mortality was lower for patients with syncopal falls. Cardiovascular conditions were significantly more common among syncopal fall patients, but the incidence, especially for arrhythmia, was high and nearly equal in the mechanical group. We believe that a standard workup for orthostasis and arrhythmia should be performed for both groups, regardless of syncopal versus mechanical etiology.
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.