ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2026
Assessment of the "world guidelines for falls prevention and management" algorithm in older volunteers.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aims30% of people aged 65 + fall at least once a year. The "world guidelines for falls prevention and management for older adults: a global initiative" (WGFs) have published an algorithm for fall risk prediction (low, intermediate or high risk) and proposed measures requiring health resources adapted to the risk level. We performed a real-life study to estimate the distribution of fall risk categories according to the WGFs algorithm in a population of old volunteers.
methodsWe performed a cross-sectional study in unselected 65-85-year-old participants attending an information meeting on WGFs falls and wishing a personalized assessment of their falls-risk.
resultsAmong the 165 participants tested (mean age: 78.3 ± 6.1, 82% females), the number of fallers was significantly higher (51.2% 95% CL: 43.6-58.8%). than in previous published studies testing the WFGs. The intermediate risk concerned 15.1% and the high risk 47.3% of participants. In fallers, 90.1% were at high risk.
conclusionInformation meetings about the WGFs could raise awareness among older people and help identify people at high risk of falling. In accordance with previous studies, most fallers would be classified at high risk of falling by using the WGFs, which makes it difficult to propose the multifactorial assessments and tailored interventions recommended by the WGFs in around 25% of all 65+.
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.