Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Primary Care–Relevant Interventions to Prevent Falling in Older Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Michael, Yvonne L., Whitlock, Evelyn P., Lin, Jennifer S., Fu, Rongwei, O'Connor, Elizabeth A., Gold, Rachel·2010·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Falls among older adults are both prevalent and preventable. PURPOSE: To describe the benefits and harms of interventions that could be used by primary care practitioners to prevent falling among community-dwelling older adults. DATA SOURCES: The reviewers evaluated trials from a good-quality systematic review published in 2003 and searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL from the end of that review's search date to February 2010 to identify additional English-language trials. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened 3423 abstracts and 638 articles to identify randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of primary care-relevant interventions among community-dwelling older adults that reported falls or fallers as an outcome. Trials were independently critically appraised to include only good- or fair-quality trials; discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data from 61 articles into standardized evidence tables that were verified by a second reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, the included evidence was of fair quality. In 16 RCTs evaluating exercise or physical therapy, interventions reduced falling (risk ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.94]). In 9 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation, interventions reduced falling (risk ratio, 0.83 [CI, 0.77 to 0.89]). In 19 trials involving multifactorial assessment and management, interventions with comprehensive management seemed to reduce falling, although overall pooled estimates were not statistically significant (risk ratio, 0.94 [CI, 0.87 to 1.02]). Limited evidence suggested that serious clinical harms were no more common for older adults in intervention groups than for those in control groups. LIMITATIONS: Interventions and methods of fall ascertainment were heterogeneous. Data on potential harms of interventions were scant and often not reported. CONCLUSION: Primary care-relevant interventions exist that can reduce falling among community-dwelling older adults. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-153-12-201012210-00008

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Michael, Y. L., Whitlock, E. P., Lin, J. S., Fu, R., O'Connor, E. A., & Gold, R.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2010-12-21
Volume
153
Issue
12
Pages
815-825
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2133653637
Cited by
309
References
6
FWCI
98.82
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.