SynthesisJournal of nursing management2026
A Systematic Review of Multivariate Models for Predicting Fall-Related Injuries in Older Adults.
Synthesis in Journal of nursing management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Multivariate Models for Predicting Fall-Related Injuries in Older Adults.Journal of nursing management · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the quality, risk of bias, and clinical applicability of prediction models for fall-related injuries in older adults.
backgroundNumerous prediction models for fall-related injuries in older adults have been developed, but their quality and applicability in clinical practice and future research remain uncertain.
methodsWe systematically searched Medline (via OVID), Embase (via OVID), Cochrane Library, CINAHL (via EBSCO), Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to May 23, 2024, for English-language publications. All observational and experimental studies reporting the development or validation of any multivariable prediction model for fall-related injuries in older adults were included. The risk of bias and applicability was assessed using the PROBAST, and the reporting quality was measured based on the TRIPOD + AI checklist. Data were synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach.
resultsThirty-one models from 15 studies were included. Twelve studies focused on the development and/or internal validation of a model, two studies dealt with development and external validation using a nonrandom split-sample, and one study externally validated existing models. The reported model discriminative statistics exhibited a broad range, from 0.54 to 0.89, in internal or external validation contexts. The risk of applicability was low for all studies, while the overall risk of bias was high in all studies (100.0%). High bias risk was notably prevalent in the analysis domain (100% of studies) and observed in the predictors (33.3%), participants (26.7%), and outcome (6.7%) domains. Median adherence to TRIPOD + AI reporting items was 56.4%.
conclusionThe discriminative ability in the prediction models of fall-related injuries in older adults varied widely, with all models exhibiting a high risk of bias according to the PROBAST. Upcoming research should focus on developing high-quality and reproducible models that undergo proper external validation, followed by studies on implementation. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Existing fall-related injuries prediction models exhibit high bias and inconsistent accuracy, limiting clinical utility. Nursing leaders should advocate for future models that undergo thorough internal and external validation, ensure sufficient events per variable, properly handle missing data, and adopt transparent reporting practices. This will underpin data-driven clinical decisions and enable targeted fall prevention strategies in vulnerable older adults.
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.