7 research outputs found
Can falls risk prediction tools correctly identify fall-prone elderly rehabilitation inpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Background
Falls of elderly people may cause permanent disability or death. Particularly susceptible are elderly patients in rehabilitation hospitals. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify falls prediction tools available for assessing elderly inpatients in rehabilitation hospitals.
Methods and Findings
We searched six electronic databases using comprehensive search strategies developed for each database. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were plotted in ROC space graphs and pooled across studies. Our search identified three studies which assessed the prediction properties of falls prediction tools in a total of 754 elderly inpatients in rehabilitation hospitals. Only the STRATIFY tool was assessed in all three studies; the other identified tools (PJC-FRAT and DOWNTON) were assessed by a single study. For a STRATIFY cut-score of two, pooled sensitivity was 73% (95%CI 63 to 81%) and pooled specificity was 42% (95%CI 34 to 51%). An indirect comparison of the tools across studies indicated that the DOWNTON tool has the highest sensitivity (92%), while the PJC-FRAT offers the best balance between sensitivity and specificity (73% and 75%, respectively). All studies presented major methodological limitations.
Conclusions
We did not identify any tool which had an optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity, or which were clearly better than a simple clinical judgment of risk of falling. The limited number of identified studies with major methodological limitations impairs sound conclusions on the usefulness of falls risk prediction tools in geriatric rehabilitation hospitals
Risk factors for geriatric patient falls in rehabilitation hospital settings: a systematic review
Objective: To review the literature to identify and synthesize the evidence on risk factors for patient falls in geriatric rehabilitation hospital settings.
Data sources: Eligible studies were systematically searched on 16 databases from inception to December 2010.
Review methods: The search strategies used a combination of terms for rehabilitation hospital patients, falls, risk factors and older adults. Cross-sectional, cohort, case-control studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English that investigated risks for falls among patients ≥65 years of age in rehabilitation hospital settings were included. Studies that investigated fall risk assessment tools, but did not investigate risk factors themselves or did not report a measure of risk (e.g. odds ratio, relative risk) were excluded.
Results: A total of 2,824 references were identified; only eight articles concerning six studies met the inclusion criteria. In these, 1,924 geriatric rehabilitation patients were followed. The average age of the patients ranged from 77 to 83 years, the percentage of women ranged from 56% to 81%, and the percentage of fallers ranged from 15% to 54%. Two were case-control studies, two were RCTs and four were prospective cohort studies. Several intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for falls were identified.
Conclusion: Carpet flooring, vertigo, being an amputee, confusion, cognitive impairment, stroke, sleep disturbance, anticonvulsants, tranquilizers and antihypertensive medications, age between 71 and 80, previous falls, and need for transfer assistance are risk factors for geriatric patient falls in rehabilitation hospital settings
Risk factors for geriatric patient falls in rehabilitation hospital settings: a systematic review
Flow-diagram depicting the selection process of studies investigating risk assessment tools for elderly inpatient falls in rehabilitation hospitals.
<p>Flow-diagram depicting the selection process of studies investigating risk assessment tools for elderly inpatient falls in rehabilitation hospitals.</p
ROC space showing sensitivity and specificity of the STRATIFY tool per study for different cut-scores
<p>(<b>A</b>)<b>, and for fall prediction based on clinical judgment and on the optimal cut-off score of STRATIFY, DOWNTON and PJC-FRAT</b> (<b>B</b>)<b>.</b> Estimates originated from the same studies are connected with dashed lines. Estimates closer to the top left corner have better sensitivity-specificity.</p
Overview of included studies showing studies characteristics and summary of findings.
*<p>Number of patients;</p>♀<p>Number of females.</p
Assessment of potential threats to internal/external validity of included studies.
<p>+: the criterion was satisfied; –: the criterion was not satisfied; ?: it was unclear whether the criterion was satisfied; NA: Not applicable; <sup>*</sup>comparison of sensitivity.</p