MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1500834894 · doi:10.1111/jgs.13424

An Independent Association Between Urinary Incontinence and Falls in Chronic Benzodiazepine Users

2015· letter· en· W1500834894 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Geneviève Courteau Godmaire, Sébastien Grenier, Cara Tannenbaum

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2015
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Établissements canadiensUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicineUrinary incontinenceOdds ratioPhysical therapyGeriatricsInternal medicineBenzodiazepineCross-sectional studyConfidence intervalMedical prescriptionCohortDiabetes mellitusSurgeryPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: Falls are a considerable health concern, leading to injury, hospitalization, and postfall anxiety in older adults.1 One-third of adults aged 65 and older fall each year, a proportion that rises with age.1 Benzodiazepines and urinary incontinence are established risk factors for falls in older adults, increasing the risk of falls by 57% (pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.57, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 1.43–1.72)2 and 45% (OR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.36–1.54),3, 4 respectively. The cumulative risk accrued with the combination of both factors in the same individual remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the independent effect of urinary incontinence on the risk of falls in chronic older benzodiazepine users living in the community. This was a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a community-dwelling cohort of 303 older benzodiazepine users enrolled in the Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results randomized trial.5 Participants were men and women aged 65 and older with an active benzodiazepine prescription dispensed for at least 3 consecutive months before screening based on pharmacy records. A trained research assistant interviewed participants using a standardized questionnaire that included information on age, sex, history of falls, presence and frequency of urinary incontinence as assessed according to International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) score,6 benzodiazepine dose (lorazepam equivalents), number of prescriptions, and number and nature of comorbidities associated with risk of falls (diabetes mellitus, arthritis, hip or vertebral fracture, heart disease, pulmonary disease, stroke, depression, anxiety, mobility impairment, chronic pain).7, 8 Univariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between falls and potential risk factors: age, sex, living alone, number of comorbidities associated with risk of falls, mobility impairment, number of prescriptions, benzodiazepine dose, and type of and severity of urinary incontinence (frequency of symptoms). Multivariate models were then constructed to ascertain the magnitude of association between falls and incontinence while adjusting for mobility problems, four or more comorbidities associated with risk of falls, benzodiazepine dose of 3 mg or more (lorazepam equivalents), and eight or more active prescriptions of any type. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Of 303 participants enrolled, 210 were women (69.3%), 85 (28.1%) reported a history of falls, and 66 (21.8%) reported urinary incontinence. Self-reported urinary incontinence more than doubled the risk of falls in univariable analyses (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.21–3.79). Other variables showing a significant association with falls in this sample were female sex, having four or more medical conditions associated with falls, taking eight or more active prescriptions, mobility impairment, and a dose of benzodiazepine drugs of 3 mg/d or more (Table 1). The association between urinary incontinence and falls persisted when adjusted for comorbidities associated with falls, polypharmacy, and mobility impairment (OR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.01–3.39). Of the 66 participants reporting incontinence, 27 (41%) reported a history of falls. Incontinence severity was significantly higher in those with falls (mean ICIQ score 10.5 ± 5.5 vs 6.9 ± 3.7, P = .002). A dose-response relationship was observed between frequency of incontinence and falls, with falls occurring in 17% of participants with incontinence only once weekly (n = 3/18), 25% of those with incontinence two to three times per week (n = 3/12), 60% of those with incontinence daily (n = 6/10), and 58% of those with incontinence more than once per day (n = 14/24). No significant associations were detected between falls and type of incontinence (stress, urgency, mixed, other). These results indicate that urinary incontinence nearly doubles the risk of falls in chronic benzodiazepine users, even when other risk factors coexist. This finding suggests a separate and distinct explanatory mechanism linking incontinence to falls other than that exerted by medicines on falls. It has been hypothesized that urinary incontinence increases the risk of falls during the act of rushing to the bathroom or through dysfunctional cerebral pathways or white matter hyperintensities.9, 10 Urinary incontinence is not addressed in the vast majority of existing fall prevention programs. Many simple nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments are available to control urinary incontinence. Falls and incontinence can ultimately lead to functional dependence and should be prevented. Randomized trials are needed to determine whether the introduction of incontinence management into fall prevention programs decreases the incidence of falls and delays functional decline. This program has received financial support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in the form of an operating grant to Dr. Cara Tannenbaum. This study was presented at the Canadian Geriatrics Society 34th Annual General Meeting, Edmonton, Alberta, April 10–12, 2014. Conflict of Interest: The authors have no potential conflict of interest to declare. Author Contributions: Godmaire, Grenier: data analysis and interpretation, editing of initial manuscript, final approval. Tannenbaum: study concept and design, acquisition of subjects and data, data analysis and interpretation, revising the article, final approval. Sponsor's Role: The sponsor played no role in the design, methods, subject recruitment, data collections, analysis, or preparation of paper.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,010

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,341
Écart entre enseignants0,318 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2015
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society→Même sujetBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→Travaux en français237 207→