ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2026
Fall risk assessment using the World Guidelines for Falls Prevention Algorithm: Evidence from the ELSI-Brazil study.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 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.
- Validation of the World Falls Guidelines risk stratification algorithm. A systematic review.Age and ageing · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management (WGF) propose a global algorithm to stratify fall risk in older adults using fall history (FH) or key questions (KQ). However, evidence on the applicability of this screening tool in low- and middle-income countries, and on whether these approaches produce different population estimates, remains limited. Implementing this tool may enhance the identification of older adults at higher risk of falls.
objectiveThis study estimated national and regional fall risk prevalence in Brazil using both methods and examined geographic differences.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using data from older participants (≥ 60 years) of the third wave of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil, 2023-2024), a nationally representative study. According to the WGF algorithm, participants were classified as high, intermediate, or low fall risk based on FH or two KQ (concern about falling and postural instability) combined with gait speed ≤ 0.8 m/s and severity markers. KQ included concern about falling, assessed using the short version of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International, and postural instability evaluated using the tandem stance test (impaired balance if < 10 s). Poisson regression with robust variance adjusted for sociodemographic factors was used to examine regional differences in fall risk prevalence.
resultsA total of 7515 older adults participated in this study (67.8 ± 0.2 years; 57.1% female). Using FH alone, 82.2% of older adults were classified as low risk, 7.8% as intermediate, and 10.0% as high risk. Using KQ, the prevalence was 50.4%, 34.6%, and 15.0%, respectively. With the KQ approach, older adults in the Northeast and Southeast had a lower probability of being low risk and a higher probability of being intermediate risk compared with those in the South. No regional differences were observed for high-risk classification or when FH alone was used.
conclusionOperationalizing the WGF algorithm with KQ substantially increases intermediate fall risk identification compared to FH alone. Based on national population estimates, approximately 3.5 million older Brazilian adults may be at high risk of falls. Within-country regional disparities reinforce the need for tailored strategies to address contextual differences in fall prevention.
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.