MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226055111 · doi:10.1186/s12877-021-02641-9

Fall prevention in community-dwelling adults with mild to moderate cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W4226055111 on OpenAlexafffund
Megan Racey, Maureen Markle‐Reid, Donna Fitzpatrick‐Lewis, Muhammad Usman Ali, Hélène Gagné, Susan Hunter, Jenny Ploeg, Richard Sztramko, Lisa Harrison, Ruth Lewis, Milos Jovkovic, Diana Sherifali

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsCARE CanadaWestern UniversityOntario Neurotrauma FoundationMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Neurotrauma FoundationMcMaster UniversityMax Bell Foundation
KeywordsMedicineFear of fallingMeta-analysisPsychological interventionFall preventionDementiaRandomized controlled trialStrictly standardized mean differencePhysical therapyBalance (ability)CognitionPoison controlGerontologyGaitFalls in older adultsRehabilitationInjury preventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryInternal medicineDiseaseEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment (CI) 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 60-80% of people with dementia fall annually. Practitioners require evidence-based fall prevention best practices to reduce the risk of falls in cognitively impaired adults living in the community. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the effectiveness of primary and secondary fall prevention interventions in reducing falls and fear of falling, and improving gait, balance, and functional mobility. We searched 7 databases for fall prevention interventions involving community-dwelling adults ≥50 years with mild to moderate CI. Reviewers screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (GRADE). We assessed statistical and methodological heterogeneity and performed a meta-analysis of studies including subgroup analysis based on intervention and risk of bias groupings. RESULTS: Five hundred nine community-dwelling adults (mean age 67.5 to 84.0 years) with mild to moderate CI from 12 randomized or clinical controlled trials (RCTs/CCTs) were included in this review. Eight studies were exercise interventions, 3 were multifactorial, and 1 provided medication treatment. Fall prevention interventions had significant effects of medium magnitude on fear of falling (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.73 [- 1.10, - 0.36]), balance (SMD 0.66 [0.19, 1.12]), and functional mobility measured as Timed Up and Go test (SMD -0.56 [- 0.94, - 0.17]) and significant effects of small magnitude on gait control (SMD 0.26 [0.08, 0.43]) all with moderate certainty of evidence. The meta-analysis showed no significant effects for falls (number of events or falls incidence). Sub-analysis showed that exercise and low risk of bias studies remained significant for balance and perceived risk of falls. CONCLUSION: The effect of fall prevention interventions on direct outcomes, such as falls, remains unclear in cognitively impaired individuals. Exercise interventions are effective at improving fall risk factors, however, high quality studies with longer follow-up and adequate sample sizes are needed to determine their effectiveness on falls directly. There remains a gap in terms of effective fall prevention interventions for older adults with CI.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.028
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations83
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207