Cited by 179Balance, Gait, and Falls PreventionStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryDysphagia Assessment and Management

Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke

Open access
Verheyden, Geert SAF, Weerdesteyn, Vivian, Pickering, Ruth M, Kunkel, Dorit, Lennon, Sheila, Geurts, Alexander CH, Ashburn, Ann·2013·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Falls are one of the most common complications after stroke, with a reported incidence ranging between 7% in the first week and 73% in the first year post stroke. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at preventing falls in people after stroke. Our primary objective was to determine the effect of interventions on the rate of falls (number of falls per person-year) and the number of fallers. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of interventions aimed at preventing falls on 1) the number of fall-related fractures; 2) the number of fall-related hospital admissions; 3) near-fall events; 4) economic evaluation; 5) quality of life; and 6) adverse effects of the interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group (September 2018) and the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group (October 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1950 to September 2018); Embase (1980 to September 2018); CINAHL (1982 to September 2018); PsycINFO (1806 to August 2018); AMED (1985 to December 2017); and PEDro (September 2018). We also searched trials registers and checked reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions where the primary or secondary aim was to prevent falls in people after stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (SD and WS) independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements through discussion, and contacted study authors for additional information where required. We used a rate ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) to compare the rate of falls (e.g. falls per person-year) between intervention and control groups. For risk of falling we used a risk ratio and 95% CI based on the number of people falling (fallers) in each group. We pooled results where appropriate and applied GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (of which six have been published since the first version of this review in 2013), with a total of 1358 participants. We found studies that investigated exercises, predischarge home visits for hospitalised patients, the provision of single lens distance vision glasses instead of multifocal glasses, a servo-assistive rollator and non-invasive brain stimulation for preventing falls.Exercise compared to control for preventing falls in people after strokeThe pooled result of eight studies showed that exercise may reduce the rate of falls but we are uncertain about this result (rate ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94, 765 participants, low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis for single exercise interventions, omitting studies using multiple/multifactorial interventions, also found that exercise may reduce the rate of falls (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.87, 626 participants). Sensitivity analysis for the effect in the chronic phase post stroke resulted in little or no difference in rate of falls (rate ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.12, 205 participants). A sensitivity analysis including only studies with low risk of bias found little or no difference in rate of falls (rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.20, 462 participants). Methodological limitations mean that we have very low confidence in the results of these sensitivity analyses.For the outcome of number of fallers, we are very uncertain of the effect of exercises compared to the control condition, based on the pooled result of 10 studies (risk ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19, 969 participants, very low quality evidence). The same sensitivity analyses as described above gives us very low certainty that there are little or no differences in number of fallers (single interventions: risk ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.28, 796 participants; chronic phase post stroke: risk ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, 375 participants; low risk of bias studies: risk ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, 462 participants).Other interventions for preventing falls in people after strokeWe are very uncertain whether interventions other than exercise reduce the rate of falls or number of fallers. We identified very low certainty evidence when investigating the effect of predischarge home visits (rate ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.69; risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.09; 85 participants), provision of single lens distance glasses to regular wearers of multifocal glasses (rate ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.25; risk ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.18; 46 participants) and a servo-assistive rollator (rate ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.21; risk ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.22; 42 participants).Finally, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was used in one study to examine the effect on falls post stroke. We have low certainty that active tDCS may reduce the number of

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd008728.pub2

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A further four systematic reviews cited but did not include affected trial reports in their reviews as a result of existing concerns with data, or awaiting responses to enquiries about data.

    “A further four systematic reviews cited but did not include affected trial reports in their reviews as a result of existing concerns with data,44–46 or awaiting responses to enquiries about data.47”

    From An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature (2019) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Excluded studies section (page not available) says four studies awaited classification because information was insufficient, and that Mayo 1994 was excluded because its author could not provide stroke-subgroup details and data. The Dealing with missing data section says the reviewers contacted study authors, but our copy does not say trial reports were left out while responses to data enquiries were pending. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 82 · Cited by 179

Authors
Verheyden, G. S., Weerdesteyn, V., Pickering, R. M., Kunkel, D., Lennon, S., Geurts, A. C., & Ashburn, A.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Southampton General Hospital (GB)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-05-31
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
CD008728-CD008728
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1585594991
Cited by
179
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
Keywords
fall prevention, stroke, post-stroke falls, fall-related fractures, balance training, gait training, exercise intervention, fall risk assessment, economic evaluation, quality of life, adverse effects, stroke rehabilitation, stroke survivors, falls in older adults
MeSH terms
Accidental Falls, Eyeglasses, Female, Humans, Male, Vitamin D, Vitamins, Exercise, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Alendronate, Stroke, Bone Density Conservation Agents

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review