MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409281655 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afaf089

Does concern about falling predict future falls in older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4409281655 on OpenAlexaffabout
Toby J. Ellmers, Jodi Ventre, Ellen Freiberger, Klaus Hauer, David B. Hogan, Mei Ling Lim, Lisa McGarrigle, Samuel R. Nyman, Chris Todd, Yuxiao Li, Kim Delbaere

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Health and Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineFalling (accident)Falls in older adultsMeta-analysisSystematic reviewGerontologyPoison controlInjury preventionMEDLINEMedical emergencyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The 2022 World Falls Guidelines recommend assessing concerns (or 'fears') about falling in multifactorial fall risk assessments. However, the evidence base for this recommendation is limited. This review evaluated the evidence for concerns about falling as an independent predictor of future falls, applying the Bradford Hill criteria for causality. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42023387212). MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science and PsycINFO were searched for studies examining associations between baseline concerns about falling and future falls in older adults (minimum 6-month follow-up). Meta-analyses examined associations between concerns about falling and future falls. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies, and evidence certainty was rated with GRADE. RESULTS: About 53 studies, comprising 75,076 participants, were included. Meta-analysis showed significant independent association between baseline concerns and future falls when using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International to assess concerns (full scale version, pooled OR = 1.03 [95% CI = 1.02-1.05] per 1-point increase; short scale version, pooled OR = 1.08 [95% CI = 1.05-1.11]). Significant associations were also observed when using single-item measures of concerns (pooled OR = 1.60 [95% CI = 1.36-1.89] for high vs. low concerns). In contrast, balance confidence (Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale) did not predict future falls (pooled OR = 0.97 [95% CI = 0.93-1.01]). Despite 26 studies rated as poor quality, associations were consistent across studies of different quality. The overall certainty of the evidence was rated as moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline concern about falling is a clear predictor of future falls in older adults, supporting its inclusion in fall risk assessments. Regular assessment of concerns about falling, along with targeted interventions, could help reduce the risk of falls in older adults.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.041
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.342 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
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

Citations33
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207