MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055707730 · doi:10.1159/000067948

Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Secondary Prevention of Falls in Older Adults

2003· review· en· W2055707730 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsHome and Community Care Support ServicesMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFall preventionGerontologyMedicineFalls in older adultsInjury preventionPoison controlSuicide preventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Falls are a significant problem for older adults. Individuals who have sustained a fall come to the attention of health care providers and are at risk of further falls. To promote the highest quality of care and reduce variation in care, a practice guideline is needed. Summarization of evidence regarding falls may be useful to researchers in this field. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based guidelines of assessment and treatment to prevent falls in older adults and to provide researchers with tables of risk factor studies and randomized controlled trials of falls prevention. METHODS: A template for the development of practice guidelines from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research was used. Evidence for risk factors was accepted from prospective studies with more than 80% follow-up. Potentially modifiable risk factors were selected and a schema for evaluating the importance of each risk factor was used. Evidence for interventions was examined from randomized controlled trials and strength of the evidence was graded. Recommendations for aspects of care where judgment was required were made by panel consensus. RESULTS: Information was drawn from 46 risk factor studies and 37 randomized controlled trials to develop a practice guideline consisting of assessment items and recommended interventions for community-dwelling and institution-dwelling older adults separately. For clinicians, a check list is provided. Summary tables of the results of studies are given to substantiate the recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: For community-dwelling older adults, there is strong evidence for multi-factorial specific risk assessment and targeted treatment. Balance exercises are recommended for all individuals who have had a fall and there is evidence for a program of home physiotherapy for women over 80 years of age regardless of risk factor status. For institutional settings, the establishment of a falls program for safety checks, ongoing staff education and monitoring is substantiated by research. Residents who have fallen need to be assessed for specific risk factors and clinical indicators to determine relevant management options.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.294
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it