MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community

2009· review· en· W2342712573 on OpenAlexaff
Lesley D Gillespie, M. Clare Robertson, William J. Gillespie, Sarah E Lamb, Simon Gates, Robert G. Cumming, Brian H. Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskPsychological interventionCochrane LibraryRate ratioConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyIncidence (geometry)Meta-analysisPoison controlInternal medicineGerontologyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of people over 65 years of age living in the community fall each year. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to reduce the incidence of falls in older people living in the community. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Current Controlled Trials (all to May 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of interventions to reduce falls in community-dwelling older people. Primary outcomes were rate of falls and risk of falling. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were pooled where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 111 trials (55,303 participants).Multiple-component group exercise reduced rate of falls and risk of falling (rate ratio (RaR) 0.78, 95%CI 0.71 to 0.86; risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95%CI 0.72 to 0.97), as did Tai Chi (RaR 0.63, 95%CI 0.52 to 0.78; RR 0.65, 95%CI 0.51 to 0.82), and individually prescribed multiple-component home-based exercise (RaR 0.66, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.82; RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.61 to 0.97).Assessment and multifactorial intervention reduced rate of falls (RaR 0.75, 95%CI 0.65 to 0.86), but not risk of falling.Overall, vitamin D did not reduce falls (RaR 0.95, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.14; RR 0.96, 95%CI 0.92 to 1.01), but may do so in people with lower vitamin D levels. Overall, home safety interventions did not reduce falls (RaR 0.90, 95%CI 0.79 to 1.03); RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.00), but were effective in people with severe visual impairment, and in others at higher risk of falling. An anti-slip shoe device reduced rate of falls in icy conditions (RaR 0.42, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.78).Gradual withdrawal of psychotropic medication reduced rate of falls (RaR 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.73), but not risk of falling. A prescribing modification programme for primary care physicians significantly reduced risk of falling (RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.41 to 0.91).Pacemakers reduced rate of falls in people with carotid sinus hypersensitivity (RaR 0.42, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.75). First eye cataract surgery reduced rate of falls (RaR 0.66, 95%CI 0.45 to 0.95).There is some evidence that falls prevention strategies can be cost saving. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise interventions reduce risk and rate of falls. Research is needed to confirm the contexts in which multifactorial assessment and intervention, home safety interventions, vitamin D supplementation, and other interventions are effective.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations789
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207