Cited by 171Balance, Gait, and Falls PreventionStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryDysphagia Assessment and Management

What Works in Falls Prevention After Stroke?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Batchelor, Frances, Hill, Keith, Mackintosh, Shylie, Said, Catherine·2010·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— Falls are common after stroke. Despite evidence that single and multifactorial interventions can reduce falls in older people, this issue remains relatively underexplored in stroke survivors. Effective fall prevention in this population has the potential to prevent injury, improve quality of life, and decrease the likelihood of subsequent fear of falling and activity restriction. The aim of this article was to review and integrate the research evidence relating to interventions that reduce falls after stroke. Methods— Published studies evaluating interventions to reduce falls in stroke survivors were retrieved and screened according to predetermined criteria. Included studies were independently assessed. Quality of trials was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database score. Pooling of results was undertaken for similar interventions with comparable outcomes using the inverse variance method. Results— Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with pooling of results possible for only 2 types of intervention. Methodological quality of the included studies was variable with the main bias because of lack of blinding of participants and those administering the intervention. Variability in falls data reporting was seen across the studies. The only intervention shown to be effective in reducing falls was vitamin D for female stroke survivors in an institutional setting. Other interventions were no more effective than usual care. Conclusions— Fall risk is high in stroke survivors; however, the only intervention shown to be effective in reducing falls in this review was vitamin D supplementation. Consistency in outcome measurement would enable comparisons across studies. Additionally, further research evaluating a range of single and multifactorial interventions for fall prevention in the stroke population is required.

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 · 10.1161/strokeaha.109.570390

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Data from two affected trial reports were included in unpooled meta-analyses in the review by Batchelor et al, in which the affected trial report data were not outlying.

    “Data from two affected trial reports were included in unpooled meta-analyses in the review by Batchelor et al 31 (65 citations, September 2018), in which the affected trial report data were not outlying.”

    From An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature (2019) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Effectiveness section (page unavailable) says the review presents unpooled effect estimates, and the Meta-Analysis section describes combining data from pairs of studies. Our copy does not identify which trial reports the citing sentence calls “affected” or establish that their data were not outlying. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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.

Cites

4 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Batchelor, F., Hill, K., Mackintosh, S., & Said, C.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Venue
Stroke
Published
2010-08
Volume
41
Issue
8
Pages
1715-1722
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2059929936
Cited by
171
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
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 survivors, fall risk, vitamin D supplementation, multifactorial intervention, older adults, fear of falling, activity limitation, physiotherapy intervention
MeSH terms
Accidental Falls, Accidents, Home, Environment Design, Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Stroke

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