ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
The INITIATE (Initial Test for Fall Risk Assessment in the Elderly) prospective cohort study: baseline results.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundFall prevention recommendations include mobility or balance testing to identify older adults with high fall risk who require further intervention. However, there is no consensus on the best tests or optimal cut-off values. The Initial Test for Fall RIsk Assessment in The Elderly (INITIATE) study was designed to determine the optimal screening test(s) for predicting falls among community-dwelling older adults. Here we describe the study protocol, sample characteristics, and baseline differences between participants with and without a history of falling.
methodsWe undertook a 1-year prospective cohort study of community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) able to walk 10 m without assistance at baseline and living in Ontario, Canada. Participants underwent a 2-hour baseline visit where 7 validated balance and mobility tests (Timed up and go (TUG) usual pace, TUG fast pace, TUG with a cognitive dual task, Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), 5 times sit-to-stand (5TSTS), single leg stance, gait speed) were administered. Falls were tracked for 12 months using monthly diaries and follow-up calls for context. Participants received quarterly calls to monitor general wellbeing, healthcare utilization, and changes to mobility. Descriptive statistics were calculated and differences by 12-month fall history were tested using t-tests, chi square tests, and Wilcox Rank Sum tests as appropriate.
resultsFrom 3211 contacted older adults, 514 (19%) consented. The mean age was 76.4 years (SD 6.7), 64% were female, 68% had a postsecondary degree/diploma, and 231(45%) reported a fall in the last 12 months. Means(SD) for the performance-based tests were as follows: TUG = 11.8s(4.0), TUG fast pace = 9.2s(3.4), TUG cog = 14.2s(5.9), Brief BESTest = 15.9 score(5.3), 5TSTS = 12.5s(4.3), single leg stance = 14.1s(16.3), gait speed = 1.14 m/s(0.28). Comparisons between baseline fallers and non-fallers showed no differences in age, sex, income, or education(p > 0.05) but did show differences in all 7 tests(p < 0.05).
conclusionsParticipants are representative of community-dwelling older adults with fall risk. Balance and mobility test differences between fallers and non-fallers support the need for prospective comparisons of their predictive validity. Follow-up results, expected in late 2025, will help inform future updates to fall risk assessment and prevention guidelines.
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.