ReviewJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2026
Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Mobilization Alarms for Prevention of Falls in Hospital.
Review in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccidental falls are a common and costly adverse event among hospital patients. Mobilization alarms are used for their prevention however research findings vary between strong favorable effects and harmful effects. We sought to establish the effectiveness of mobilization alarms for the prevention of inpatient falls; identify effect modifiers and sources of design-related bias that may be confounding this field.
methodsSystematic review of English-language publications with no year limit restrictions using databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus; last searched on February 16, 2026. Two independent reviewers selected publications focused on alarm systems for the prevention of falls among adult hospital inpatients. Three reviewers extracted data related to study outcomes along with effect modifiers and potential sources of design-related bias. We followed PRISMA reporting guidelines. We undertook meta-analyses of RCTs and non-RCTs; examined potential effect modifiers and sources of design-related bias, then expanded the analyses to a broader range of factors in univariate and multiple meta-regression analyses, and exploratory analyses of time-series data to address the research objectives. The primary outcomes were rates of falls (ratio and mean difference), falls resulting in injury, and proportion of patients becoming fallers.
resultsPooled incidence rate ratio (95% CI) of falls when exposed to alarms when just considering RCTs (n = 13 comparisons, 11 studies) was 0.93 (0.83 to 1.04); and for injurious falls (n = 7, 6) was 1.00 (0.87 to 1.16); while mean difference (95% CI) in rate of falls/1000 OBD (n = 9, 8) was -0.20 (-1.03 to 0.64); and odds ratio for becoming a faller (n = 5, 5) was 1.11 (0.91 to 1.35). Multiple meta-regression analyses yielded results even more strongly indicating null effect, and consistently identified prospective registration as the most protective factor against studies reporting over-optimistic results.
conclusionsRoutine, hospital-wide use of mobilization alarms appears ineffective for the prevention of inpatient falls.
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.