Exercise for Fall Risk Reduction in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of exercise on falls and fall risk reduction in community-dwelling older adults and to present an updated synthesis of outcome measures for the assessment of fall risk in community-dwelling older adults. METHOD: A systematic review was performed, considering English-language articles published from 2000 to 2006 and accessible through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PEDro, EMBASE, and/or AMED. Included were randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that used an exercise or physical activity intervention and involved participants over age 50. Screening and methodological quality for internal validity were conducted by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: The search retrieved 156 abstracts; 22 articles met the internal validity criteria. Both individualized and group exercise programmes were found to be effective in reducing falls and fall risk. The optimal type, frequency, and dose of exercise to achieve a positive effect have not been determined. A variety of outcome measures have been used to measure fall risk, especially for balance. CONCLUSIONS: Falls and fall risk can be reduced with exercise interventions in the community-dwelling elderly, although the most effective exercise variables are unknown. Future studies in populations with comorbidities known to increase fall risk will help determine optimal, condition-specific fall-prevention programmes. Poor balance is a key risk factor for falls; therefore, the best measure of this variable should be selected when evaluating patients at risk of falling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".