MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108176399 · doi:10.1111/pme.12462

Pain Is Associated with Recurrent Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2014· review· en· W2108176399 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

VenuePain Medicine · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisFalls in older adultsSystematic reviewMEDLINEGerontologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPhysical therapyPoison controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain and recurrent falls are highly problematic in community-dwelling older adults, yet the association remains elusive. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the association between pain and recurrent falls in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Two independent reviewers conducted searches of major electronic databases, completed methodological assessment, and extracted the data of all included articles. Articles that were included are those that (1) involved community-dwelling older adults; (2) recorded recurrent falls; and (3) assessed pain. Articles that were excluded are those that included participants with dementia, any neurological conditions, or those with orthopedic trauma/surgery in the past 6 months. RESULTS: Out of a potential of 71 articles, 11 met the inclusion criteria and 7 (N = 9,581) were eligible for the meta-analysis. The annual prevalence of recurrent falls in those reporting pain (12.9%) was higher than the pain-free control group (7.2%, P < 0.001). A global meta-analysis established that pain was associated with recurrent falls (odds ratio [OR]: 2.04, confidence interval [CI]: 1.75-2.39; N = 3,950 with pain and N = 5,631 controls), and this was decreased in a subgroup meta-analysis utilizing prospective studies only (OR: 1.79, CI: 1.44-2.21, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%; N = 3, N = 2,646). A subgroup analysis comparing recurrent fallers vs. non-fallers only (OR: 2.18, CI: 1.82-2.60, N = 6,320, I2 = 0%) established the odds were particularly higher than single fallers vs. non-fallers (OR:1.44, CI: 1.26-1.64, N = 6,903, (I2) = 0%). CONCLUSION: Older adults with pain are at particularly increased risk of recurrent falls. Clinicians working with recurrent fallers should routinely assess pain while pain specialists should inquire about older adults' falls history.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.306 · 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