Trial reportTrials2025
Impact of a two-phase robotic-assisted and home-based training program on falls and fall risk in older adults: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 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.
- The Effectiveness of Personalized Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation on Fall Risk: A Retrospective Controlled Study with a 6-Month Follow-Up.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFalls in older adults represent a significant health risk, and technology-supported interventions have emerged as a potential training solution to reduce fall risk. However, the effectiveness and applicability of such interventions require further evaluation. This study aimed to assess the impact of a novel technology-supported fall prevention program on fall incidence, fall risk, acceptability, and feasibility in community-dwelling older adults.
methodsIn this multicenter randomized controlled trial, 292 older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) were randomly assigned at T
resultsA total of 172 participants finished the study. After completing the intervention period and the 1-year follow-up, the CTR group demonstrated significant increases in both the total number of falls and the number of participants who experienced a fall (PEF) compared to baseline, whereas the INT group showed no significant changes. At follow-up, the incidence rate of falls did not differ significantly between groups, but the risk ratio of PEF was significantly higher in the CTR group after adjusting for baseline values. A significant time × group interaction was observed for the Silver Index, but not for the TUG. Adherence rates were high for both the technology-supported (83.6%) and home-based training (87.7%), with both phases well accepted by the participants.
conclusionsThe two-phase technology-supported intervention demonstrated a potential for reducing falls and PEF, although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The intervention was well received and demonstrated feasibility, indicating the potential for future implementation. Further research is required to investigate the cost-effectiveness of such programs, particularly in populations of older adults at elevated risk of falls.
trial registrationDRKS00025897. Registered on August 16, 2021.
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.