MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415535570 · doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2025.100442

The quality and applicability of clinical practice guidelines for falls prevention, assessment and management across the lifespan: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4415535570 on OpenAlex
Amber Harnett, M Lyndsay Howitt, Vithusa Kumarasamy, Christine Buchanan, Amy Burt, Nafsin Nizum, Shanoja Naik

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioQueen's University
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsClinical PracticeQuality (philosophy)Quality managementMEDLINEHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The burden of falls across the lifespan is substantial. Given the variety of clinical practice guidelines available for falls management, it is useful to understand the quality and clinical applicability of guidelines and their recommendations. Objective: To assess the quality and applicability of clinical practice guidelines for falls prevention, assessment and management across the lifespan. Design: Systematic review, reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data Sources: CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and grey literature databases were searched from January 2016 to April 2025. Methods: Two investigators assessed the methodological quality of the guidelines and recommendations based on the eligibility criteria established a priori. Scaled domain scores were calculated for AGREE II and AGREE-REX. Results: Eleven guidelines met the eligibility criteria and were included for analysis. Most provided recommendations for older adults with only two guidelines focused on adults. AGREE II scores ranged from 32 % to 83 %, while AGREE-REX scores ranged from 39 % to 56 %. Three guidelines were of high quality (≥70 %): (1) 2017 Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, (2) 2025 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and (3) 2022 World Falls Guideline. Conclusion: This systematic review identified gaps in evidence-based guidelines for falls prevention, particularly for individuals under 65. Variations in guideline quality suggest the need for refined development processes, emphasizing stakeholder involvement and applicability. Despite limitations in the current evidence, this review offers a foundation for future guideline development, highlighting the importance of developing inclusive, evidence-based guidelines to address falls for children and adults under the age of 65. Registration: The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration CRD42023446557). Tweetable Abstract: Gaps in fall prevention, assessment, and management guidelines emphasize the need for evidence-based recommendations for children and adults under the age of 65.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.684
Teacher spread0.361 · 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