Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41851839›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2026

Performance of retrospectively and prospectively-reported falls data in predicting future falls: results from the Falls in Glaucoma Study.

Mariah Diaz, Grace Xiao, Tejasvi Kakani, Louay Almidani, Zhuochen Yuan, Seema Banerjee, Xindi Chen, Aleksandra Mihailovic, Pradeep Y Ramulu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mariah DiazUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Grace XiaoWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Maumenee B120, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Tejasvi KakaniWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Maumenee B120, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Louay AlmidaniWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Maumenee B120, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Zhuochen YuanWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Maumenee B120, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Seema BanerjeeWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Maumenee B120, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Xindi ChenWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Maumenee B120, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Aleksandra MihailovicWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Maumenee B120, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Pradeep Y RamuluWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Maumenee B120, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. pramulu@jhmi.edu.

Funding

NIH HHS EY022976
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur objective is to investigate the association between prospectively-reported and retrospectively-reported falls data and the likelihood of subsequent falls in a cohort of patients with and without visual field loss.

methodsRetrospective falls data (self-reported) was collected at the baseline visit where participants reported if they experienced a fall in the preceding year and their level of fear of falling. Prospective falls data (i.e. falls, near falls, and injurious falls) was collected using fall calendars with participants recording falls daily. Participants reported falls and near-falls monthly over a 2-year period. Logistic regressions assessed whether baseline retrospective falls data was predictive of falls in year 1 and whether prospective falls data in year 1 was associated with falls in year 2. Models were controlled for age, gender, race, degree of visual field (VF) loss, comorbidities, and polypharmacy.

resultsFallers in the first year of study, as judged by prospective falls data, were 2.4 times (Odds Ratio (OR)=2.41, p=0.003) more likely to report a fall in the second year compared to non-fallers in the first year. Those who prospectively-reported more than one fall (OR=5.74, p-value<0.001), a single injurious fall (months 0 to 12; OR=2.30, p-value=.03), and multiple injurious falls (months 0 to 12; OR= 4.28, p-value=0.025) in year one were significantly more likely to report a fall in the following year. Self-report of a fall in the year preceding the study and fear of falling at baseline did not predict reporting falls in the first study year. Prospectively-reported near-falls in the first year were associated with higher odds of falls in both the first (concurrent) study year (OR=3.49, p<0.001) and the subsequent second year (OR=3.14, p<0.001). Predictive capacity of retrospective and prospective data to identify those at risk of falls in subsequent years did not vary by visual field sensitivity.

conclusionsProspectively-reported falls and near-falls are predictive of falls in subsequent years, while self-reported falls based on memory do not predict falls in subsequent years. These findings highlight the importance of prospective collection of falls data to accu­rately identify those at risk of falling who might benefit from fall prevention strategies.

trial registrationClinical trial number: not applicable

Indexed as

Accidental FallsGlaucomaSelf ReportAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMalePredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsFall preventionFall riskFallsProspective dataRetrospective data

Identifiers

PMID41851839
PMCPMC13112650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.