Trial reportAge and ageing2026
The cost-effectiveness of the stopping elderly accidents, deaths and injuries options randomised quality improvement trial to prevent falls among older adults.
Trial report in Age and ageing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundStopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries (STEADI) Options was a randomized trial of a telemedicine implementation of the CDC's STEADI older adult fall prevention initiative implemented among adults ages 65 and older at increased risk for falls.
methodsUsing STEADI Options and published data, we simulated the intervention's cost-effectiveness as compared to standard of care from the healthcare payer's perspective, over a one-year time horizon with a 0% discount rate. Using an incremental net benefit (INB) framework we estimated cost-effectiveness assuming a baseline willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $25 478 to prevent one medically treated fall and performed univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsCumulatively when compared to the control participants, those in the intervention cost -$873 (95% U.I. -$3839, $2081) less, experienced fewer falls treated within the healthcare system -0.037 (95% Confidence interval (C.I.), -0.090, 0.015), and fewer falls treated by other providers -0.007 (95% C.I. -0.070, 0.053). The intervention's INB of $1995 (95% U.I. -$2166, $6118) per enrollee, was cost saving in 71.8% of simulations and cost-effective in 82.9% of simulations. Cost-effectiveness was insensitive to wide changes in the model's parameters, was cost-effective in 71.8% of simulations at a WTP of $0 and 85.4% of simulations at a WTP of $50 000.
conclusionWithin the study cohort, the intervention was highly likely to be cost-effective. However, differences in medically treated falls and total healthcare costs were not statistically significant; therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that the intervention had no impact.
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.