Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,147

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Multifactorial Intervention to Reduce the Risk of Falling among Elderly People Living in the Community

Tinetti, Mary E., Baker, Dorothy I., McAvay, Gail, Claus, Elizabeth B., Garrett, Patricia, Gottschalk, Margaret, Koch, Marie L., Trainor, Kathryn, Horwitz, Ralph I.·1994·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejm199409293311301
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since falling is associated with serious morbidity among elderly people, we investigated whether the risk of falling could be reduced by modifying known risk factors. METHODS: We studied 301 men and women living in the community who were at least 70 years of age and who had at least one of the following risk factors for falling: postural hypotension; use of sedatives; use of at least four prescription medications; and impairment in arm or leg strength or range of motion, balance, ability to move safely from bed to chair or to the bathtub or toilet (transfer skills), or gait. These subjects were given either a combination of adjustment in their medications, behavioral instructions, and exercise programs aimed at modifying their risk factors (intervention group, 153 subjects) or usual health care plus social visits (control group, 148 subjects). RESULTS: During one year of follow-up, 35 percent of the intervention group fell, as compared with 47 percent of the control group (P = 0.04). The adjusted incidence-rate ratio for falling in the intervention group as compared with the control group was 0.69 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.90). Among the subjects who had a particular risk factor at base line, a smaller percentage of those in the intervention group than of those in the control group still had the risk factor at the time of reassessment, as follows: at least four prescription medications, 63 percent versus 86 percent, P = 0.009; balance impairment, 21 percent versus 46 percent, P = 0.001; impairment in toilet-transfer skills, 49 percent versus 65 percent, P = 0.05; and gait impairment, 45 percent versus 62 percent, P = 0.07. CONCLUSIONS: The multiple-risk-factor intervention strategy resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of falling among elderly persons in the community. In addition, the proportion of persons who had the targeted risk factors for falling was reduced in the intervention group, as compared with the control group. Thus, risk-factor modification may partially explain the reduction in the risk of falling.

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 · 10.1056/nejm199409293311301

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Tinetti, M. E., Baker, D. I., McAvay, G., Claus, E. B., Garrett, P., Gottschalk, M., Koch, M. L., Trainor, K., & Horwitz, R. I.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
1994-09-29
Volume
331
Issue
13
Pages
821-827
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejm199409293311301
OpenAlex
W2322424896
Cited by
2,147
References
5
FWCI
166.26
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.