| Literature DB >> 29584895 |
Chiara Naseri1, Terry P Haines2, Christopher Etherton-Beer3, Steven McPhail4,5, Meg E Morris6, Leon Flicker7, Julie Netto8, Jacqueline Francis-Coad9, Den-Ching A Lee2, Ronald Shorr10,11, Anne-Marie Hill1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: older adults are known to have increased falls rates and functional decline following hospital discharge, with substantial economic healthcare costs. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the evidence for effective falls prevention interventions in older adults recently discharged from hospital.Entities:
Keywords: after hospital discharge; falls outcomes; falls prevention interventions; older people; systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29584895 PMCID: PMC7206858 DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afy043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Age Ageing ISSN: 0002-0729 Impact factor: 10.668
Figure 1.Study selection flow chart.
Figure 2.Forest plots (pooled) overall effect of home exercise on falls outcomes.
Figure 3.Forest plots (un-pooled) effect of interventions on falls rate and proportion of people who fell.
GRADE Summary of the evidence
| Number of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | ANTICIPATED ABSOLUTE EFFECTS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative effects (%) | Absolute effect with intervention [95% CI] | |||
| HOME EXERCISE INTERVENTION | ||||
| | ||||
| | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | – | Risk ratio for falls in the intervention groups was | |
| | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | – | Risk ratio for falls injuries in the intervention groups was | |
| | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | – | Odds ratio for proportion of fallers with intervention was | |
| NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTATION | ||||
| | ||||
| | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | – | Hazard ratio for proportion of fallers with intervention was | |
1Imprecision: the 95% CI of the pooled estimate included one or no effect.
2Inconsistency: heterogeneity may be explained by the differing characteristics of the populations, content and duration of the intervention across the studies.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University, 2015 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). http://www.gradepro.org [Accessed 16 March 2017].