Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines on Fall Prevention and Management for Older Adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: With the global population aging, falls and fall-related injuries are ubiquitous, and several clinical practice guidelines for falls prevention and management for individuals 60 years or older have been developed. A systematic evaluation of the recommendations and agreement level is lacking. Objectives: To perform a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for falls prevention and management for adults 60 years or older in all settings (eg, community, acute care, and nursing homes), evaluate agreement in recommendations, and identify potential gaps. Evidence Review: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement methods for clinical practice guidelines on fall prevention and management for older adults was conducted (updated July 1, 2021) using MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PEDro, and Epistemonikos databases. Medical Subject Headings search terms were related to falls, clinical practice guidelines, management and prevention, and older adults, with no restrictions on date, language, or setting for inclusion. Three independent reviewers selected records for full-text examination if they followed evidence- and consensus-based processes and assessed the quality of the guidelines using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE-II) criteria. The strength of the recommendations was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scores, and agreement across topic areas was assessed using the Fleiss κ statistic. Findings: Of 11 414 records identified, 159 were fully reviewed and assessed for eligibility, and 15 were included. All 15 selected guidelines had high-quality AGREE-II total scores (mean [SD], 80.1% [5.6%]), although individual quality domain scores for clinical applicability (mean [SD], 63.4% [11.4%]) and stakeholder (clinicians, patients, or caregivers) involvement (mean [SD], 76.3% [9.0%]) were lower. A total of 198 recommendations covering 16 topic areas in 15 guidelines were identified after screening 4767 abstracts that proceeded to 159 full texts. Most (≥11) guidelines strongly recommended performing risk stratification, assessment tests for gait and balance, fracture and osteoporosis management, multifactorial interventions, medication review, exercise promotion, environment modification, vision and footwear correction, referral to physiotherapy, and cardiovascular interventions. The strengths of the recommendations were inconsistent for vitamin D supplementation, addressing cognitive factors, and falls prevention education. Recommendations on use of hip protectors and digital technology or wearables were often missing. None of the examined guidelines included a patient or caregiver panel in their deliberations. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found that current clinical practice guidelines on fall prevention and management for older adults showed a high degree of agreement in several areas in which strong recommendations were made, whereas other topic areas did not achieve this level of consensus or coverage. Future guidelines should address clinical applicability of their recommendations and include perspectives of patients and other stakeholders.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,187 | 0,573 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,025 | 0,021 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,004 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».