Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2025
A randomized control trial comparing Falls Reduction for Elderly Emergency Department (FREED) interventions and usual care.
Trial report in BMC emergency medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the effectiveness of a Falls Reduction for Elderly Emergency Department (FREED) intervention in reducing recurrent falls among older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) after a fall at 6 months.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial conducted in an ED in Bangkok, Thailand, included patients aged ≥ 60 years who had experienced a fall in the previous 7 days. The patients were randomized to receive the FREED intervention or usual care, including a systematic fall risk assessment, medication review, vitamin D supplementation, physical therapy referrals, and home environment assessment. The primary outcomes analysis included the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses.
resultsAfter excluding 1,026 ineligible individuals, 216 patients (median age: 75 [interquartile range: 69-81] years were enrolled, 108 in the FREED intervention and 108 in the usual care arm. Six-month follow-up data were available for 97% of the participants. The intergroup difference in repeated falls (primary result) was not significant (intervention group: 20.4%, control group: 25.0%; the observed absolute risk reduction of 4.6% was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: -15.8% to 6.5%, p = 0.42). At 6 months, activities of daily living (ADL) scores decreased very slightly in both groups, with no between-group differences.
conclusionThe FREED intervention was feasible and acceptable among older ED patients who had fallen but did not significantly reduce repeated falls at 6 months. Fall prevention in the ED can be challenging, and multicenter studies with longer follow-up periods are required to further explore the impact of ED-initiated fall prevention interventions. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: TCTR20180522002.
trial registrationThe trial was registered in the Thai Clinical Trial Register on 22 May 2018.
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.