ArticleBMJ open2026
Cost-effectiveness of home-based fall detection and monitoring technologies for community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFalls affect approximately one-third of community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older annually, with healthcare costs exceeding US$80 billion in the USA alone. Home-based fall detection technologies have proliferated, yet cost-effectiveness evidence remains fragmented.
objectivesTo systematically identify, appraise and synthesise evidence on the cost-effectiveness of home-based fall detection and monitoring technologies for community-dwelling older adults.
methodsThis protocol is reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Searches will be conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science and economic databases from database inception to the date the searches are executed. Two reviewers will independently screen studies using Covidence, extract data and assess quality using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 and Drummond checklists. Narrative synthesis with meta-analysis where appropriate will be employed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review will analyse only previously published, aggregate data and will not involve primary data collection from human participants. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed open-access publication, conference presentations and accessible formats developed with patient and caregiver advocacy organisations. PROSPERO REGISTERATION NUMBER: The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261433029).
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.