Fall Prevention in Adults With Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cognitive impairment increases an individual’s risk of falls due to the role cognition plays in gait control. Older adults with dementia fall 2-3 times more than cognitively healthy older adults and there is a lack of evidence for effective fall prevention interventions for community-dwelling cognitively impaired adults. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions in improving falls, perceived risk of falls, gait, balance, and functional mobility. We searched 7 databases for interventions involving community-dwelling adults ≥50 years with mild to moderate cognitive impairment. Reviewers screened citations, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (GRADE). We performed a meta-analysis of 509 community-dwelling adults (mean age 67.5 to 84.0 years) with mild to moderate cognitive impairment from 12 randomized controlled trails (8 exercise interventions, 3 multifactorial, and 1 providing medication). Interventions had medium significant effects on perceived risk of falls (SMD -0.73 [-1.10, -0.36]), balance (SMD 0.66 [0.19, 1.12]), and timed up and go test (SMD -0.56 [-0.94, -0.17]) and small significant effects on gait speed and control (SMD 0.26 [0.08, 0.43]) with moderate certainty of evidence. There were no significant effects for falls. Sub-analysis showed that exercise and studies at low risk of bias remained significant for balance and perceived risk of falls. The effect of fall prevention interventions on falls remains unclear; exercise interventions are effective at addressing fall risk factors. However, high quality and longer studies with adequate sample sizes are needed to determine their effectiveness on 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".