Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exercise Training for Rehabilitation and Secondary Prevention of Falls in Geriatric Patients with a History of Injurious Falls

Hauer, Klaus, Rost, Brenda, Rütschle, Kirstin, Opitz, Hedda, Specht, Norbert, Bärtsch, Peter, Oster, Peter, Schlierf, Günter·2001·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
DOI 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49004.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of an exercise protocol designed to improve strength, mobility, and balance and to reduce subsequent falls in geriatric patients with a history of injurious falls. DESIGN: A randomized controlled 3-month intervention trial, with an additional 3-month follow-up. SETTING: Out-patient geriatric rehabilitation unit. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-seven female geriatric patients (mean age 82 +/- 4.8 years; range 75-90) admitted to acute care or inpatient rehabilitation with a history of recurrent or injurious falls including patients with acute fall-related fracture. INTERVENTION: Ambulatory training of strength, functional performance, and balance 3 times per week for 3 months. Patients of the control group attended a placebo group 3 times a week for 3 months. Both groups received an identical physiotherapeutic treatment 2 times a week, in which strengthening and balance training were excluded. MEASUREMENTS: Strength, functional ability, motor function, psychological parameters, and fall rates were assessed by standardized protocols at the beginning (T1) and the end (T2) of intervention. Patients were followed up for 3 months after the intervention (T3). RESULTS: No training-related medical problems occurred in the study group. Forty-five patients (79%) completed all assessments after the intervention and follow-up period. Adherence was excellent in both groups (intervention 85.4 +/- 27.8% vs control 84.2 +/- 29.3%). The patients in the intervention group increased strength, functional motor performance, and balance significantly. Fall-related behavioral and emotional restrictions were reduced significantly. Improvements persisted during the 3-month follow-up with only moderate losses. For patients of the control group, no change in strength, functional performance, or emotional status could be documented during intervention and follow-up. Fall incidence was reduced nonsignificantly by 25% in the intervention group compared with the control group (RR:0.753 CI:0.455-1.245). CONCLUSIONS: Progressive resistance training and progressive functional training are safe and effective methods of increasing strength and functional performance and reducing fall-related behavioral and emotional restrictions during ambulant rehabilitation in frail, high-risk geriatric patients with a history of injurious falls.

Overview

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 · 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49004.x

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hauer, K., Rost, B., Rütschle, K., Opitz, H., Specht, N., Bärtsch, P., Oster, P., & Schlierf, G.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-01
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
10-20
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
DOI
10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49004.x
OpenAlex
W2009924676
Cited by
326
References
7
FWCI
48.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.