MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906042359 · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2018.11.003

Orthostatic Hypotension and Falls in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2906042359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arjen Mol, Phuong Thanh Silvie Bui Hoang, Sifat Sharmin, Esmee M. Reijnierse, Richard van Wezel, Carel G. M. Meskers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekRadboud UniversiteitEuropean Commission
KeywordsOrthostatic vital signsMedicineOdds ratioMeta-analysisConfidence intervalPopulationPhysical therapyBlood pressureInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Orthostatic hypotension is a potential risk factor for falls in older adults, but existing evidence on this relationship is inconclusive. This study addresses the association between orthostatic hypotension and falls. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the cross-sectional and longitudinal studies assessing the association between orthostatic hypotension and falls, as preregistered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017060134). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A literature search was performed on February 20, 2017, in MEDLINE (from 1946), PubMed (from 1966), and EMBASE (from 1947) using the terms orthostatic hypotension, postural hypotension, and falls. References of included studies were screened for other eligible studies. Study selection was performed independently by 2 reviewers using the following inclusion criteria: published in English; mean/median age of the population ≥65 years; blood pressure measurement before and after postural change; and assessment of the association of orthostatic hypotension with falls. The following studies were excluded: conference abstracts, case reports, reviews, and editorials. Data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. MEASURES: Unadjusted odds ratios of the association between orthostatic hypotension and falls were used for pooling using a random effects model. Studies were rated as high, moderate, or low quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Out of 5646 studies, 63 studies (51,800 individuals) were included in the systematic review and 50 studies (49,164 individuals) in the meta-analysis. Out of 63 studies, 39 were cross-sectional and 24 were longitudinal. Orthostatic hypotension was positively associated with falls (odds ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.50-1.99). The result was independent of study population, study design, study quality, orthostatic hypotension definition, and blood pressure measurement method. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Orthostatic hypotension is significantly positively associated with falls in older adults, underpinning the clinical relevance to test for an orthostatic blood pressure drop and highlighting the need to investigate orthostatic hypotension treatment to potentially reduce falls.

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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.036
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations191
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Directors AssociationSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207