Dataset Information

Instruments for assessing the risk of falls in acute hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Falls are a serious problem for hospitalized patients, reducing the duration and quality of life. It is estimated that over 84% of all adverse events in hospitalized patients are related to falls. Some fall risk assessment tools have been developed and tested in environments other than those for which they were developed with serious validity discrepancies. The aim of this review is to determine the accuracy of instruments for detecting fall risk and predicting falls in acute hospitalized patients.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Main databases, related websites and grey literature were searched. Two blinded reviewers evaluated title and abstracts of the selected articles and, if they met inclusion criteria, methodological quality was assessed in a new blinded process. Meta-analyses of diagnostic ORs (DOR) and likelihood (LH) coefficients were performed with the random effects method. Forest plots were calculated for sensitivity and specificity, DOR and LH. Additionally, summary ROC (SROC) curves were calculated for every analysis.

Results

Fourteen studies were selected for the review. The meta-analysis was performed with the Morse (MFS), STRATIFY and Hendrich II Fall Risk Model scales. The STRATIFY tool provided greater diagnostic validity, with a DOR value of 7.64 (4.86 - 12.00). A meta-regression was performed to assess the effect of average patient age over 65 years and the performance or otherwise of risk reassessments during the patient's stay. The reassessment showed a significant reduction in the DOR on the MFS (rDOR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.64 - 0.89, p = 0.017).

Conclusions

The STRATIFY scale was found to be the best tool for assessing the risk of falls by hospitalized acutely-ill adults. However, the behaviour of these instruments varies considerably depending on the population and the environment, and so their operation should be tested prior to implementation. Further studies are needed to investigate the effect of the reassessment of these instruments with respect to hospitalized adult patients, and to consider the real compliance by healthcare personnel with procedures related to patient safety, and in particular concerning the prevention of falls.

SUBMITTER: Aranda-Gallardo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3637640 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Instruments for assessing the risk of falls in acute hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aranda-Gallardo Marta M Morales-Asencio Jose M JM Canca-Sanchez Jose C JC Barrero-Sojo Silvia S Perez-Jimenez Claudia C Morales-Fernandez Angeles A de Luna-Rodriguez Margarita Enriquez ME Moya-Suarez Ana B AB Mora-Banderas Ana M AM

BMC health services research 20130402

<h4>Background</h4>Falls are a serious problem for hospitalized patients, reducing the duration and quality of life. It is estimated that over 84% of all adverse events in hospitalized patients are related to falls. Some fall risk assessment tools have been developed and tested in environments other than those for which they were developed with serious validity discrepancies. The aim of this review is to determine the accuracy of instruments for detecting fall risk and predicting falls in acute ...[more]

PMID: 23547708

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPost-acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms occurred in most of the COVID-19 survivors. However, few studies have examined the issue of whether hospitalization results in different post-acute COVID-19 symptom risks. This study aimed to compare potential COVID-19 long-term effects in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors.MethodsThis study is designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. A systematic search of six databases was performed for identifying articles published from inception until April 20th, 2022, which compared post-acute COVID-19 symptom risk in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors using a predesigned search strategy included terms for SARS-CoV-2 (eg, COVID, coronavirus, and 2019-nCoV), post-acute COVID-19 Syndrome (eg, post-COVID, post COVID conditions, chronic COVID symptom, long COVID, long COVID symptom, long-haul COVID, COVID sequelae, convalescence, and persistent COVID symptom), and hospitalization (hospitalized, in hospital, and home-isolated). The present meta-analysis was conducted according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement using R software 4.1.3 to create forest plots. Q statistics and the I 2 index were used to evaluate heterogeneity in this meta-analysis.ResultsSix observational studies conducted in Spain, Austria, Switzerland, Canada, and the USA involving 419 hospitalized and 742 non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors were included. The number of COVID-19 survivors in included studies ranged from 63 to 431, and follow-up data were collected through visits in four studies and another two used an electronic questionnaire, visit and telephone, respectively. Significant increase in the risks of long dyspnea (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.90-5.32), anxiety (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.47-6.47), myalgia (OR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.02-5.33), and hair loss (OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.07-7.12) risk were found in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors compared with outpatients. Conversely, persisting ageusia risk was significantly reduced in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors than in non-hospitalized patients.ConclusionThe findings suggested that special attention and patient-centered rehabilitation service based on a needs survey should be provided for hospitalized COVID-19 survivors who experienced high post-acute COVID-19 symptoms risk.

Project description:BackgroundFalls efficacy is a widely-studied latent construct in community-dwelling older adults. Various self-reported instruments have been used to measure falls efficacy. In order to be informed of the choice of the best measurement instrument for a specific purpose, empirical evidence of the development and measurement properties of falls efficacy related instruments is needed.MethodsThe Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Intruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to summarise evidence on the development, content validity, and structural validity of instruments measuring falls efficacy in community-dwelling older adults. Databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL were searched (May 2019). Records on the development of instruments and studies assessing content validity or structural validity of falls efficacy related scales were included. COSMIN methodology was used to guide the review of eligible studies and in the assessment of their methodological quality. Evidence of content validity: relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility and unidimensionality for structural validity were synthesised. A modified GRADE approach was applied to evidence synthesis.ResultsThirty-five studies, of which 18 instruments had been identified, were included in the review. High-quality evidence showed that the Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (FES)-13 items (MFES-13) has sufficient relevance, yet insufficient comprehensiveness for measuring falls efficacy. Moderate quality evidence supported that the FES-10 has sufficient relevance, and MFES-14 has sufficient comprehensibility. Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale-Simplified (ABC-15) has sufficient relevance in measuring balance confidence supported by moderate-quality evidence. Low to very low-quality evidence underpinned the content validity of other instruments. High-quality evidence supported sufficient unidimensionality for eight instruments (FES-10, MFES-14, ABC-6, ABC-15, ABC-16, Iconographical FES (Icon-FES), FES-International (FES-I) and Perceived Ability to Prevent and Manage Fall Risks (PAPMFR)).ConclusionContent validity of instruments to measure falls efficacy is understudied. Structural validity is sufficient for a number of widely-used instruments. Measuring balance confidence is a subset of falls efficacy. Further work is needed to investigate a broader construct for falls efficacy.

Project description:BackgroundA major barrier to improving perinatal mental health in Africa is the lack of locally validated tools for identifying probable cases of perinatal depression or for measuring changes in depression symptom severity. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the reliability and validity of instruments to assess perinatal depression in African settings.Methods and findingsOf 1,027 records identified through searching 7 electronic databases, we reviewed 126 full-text reports. We included 25 unique studies, which were disseminated in 26 journal articles and 1 doctoral dissertation. These enrolled 12,544 women living in nine different North and sub-Saharan African countries. Only three studies (12%) used instruments developed specifically for use in a given cultural setting. Most studies provided evidence of criterion-related validity (20 [80%]) or reliability (15 [60%]), while fewer studies provided evidence of construct validity, content validity, or internal structure. The Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS), assessed in 16 studies (64%), was the most frequently used instrument in our sample. Ten studies estimated the internal consistency of the EPDS (median estimated coefficient alpha, 0.84; interquartile range, 0.71-0.87). For the 14 studies that estimated sensitivity and specificity for the EPDS, we constructed 2 x 2 tables for each cut-off score. Using a bivariate random-effects model, we estimated a pooled sensitivity of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.99) and a pooled specificity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59-0.88) at a cut-off score of ? 9, with higher cut-off scores yielding greater specificity at the cost of lower sensitivity.ConclusionsThe EPDS can reliably and validly measure perinatal depression symptom severity or screen for probable postnatal depression in African countries, but more validation studies on other instruments are needed. In addition, more qualitative research is needed to adequately characterize local understandings of perinatal depression-like syndromes in different African contexts.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough structured tools have been widely used to predict violence risk in specialist mental health settings, there is uncertainty about the extent and quality of evidence of their predictive performance. We aimed to systematically review the predictive performance of tools used to assess violence risk in forensic mental health, where they are routinely administered.MethodsIn our systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed PRISMA guidelines and searched four databases (PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and Global Health) from database inception to Nov 1, 2022, to identify studies examining the predictive performance of risk assessment tools in people discharged from forensic (secure) mental health hospitals. Systematic and narrative reviews were excluded from the review. Performance measures and descriptive statistics were extracted from published reports. A quality assessment was performed for each study using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Meta-analysis was conducted on the performance of instruments that were independently externally validated with a sample size greater than 100. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022304716.FindingsWe conducted a systematic review of 50 eligible publications, assessing the predictive performance of 36 tools, providing data for 10 460 participants (88% men, 12% women; median age [from 47 studies] was 35 years, IQR 33-38) from 12 different countries. Post-discharge interpersonal violence and crime was most often measured by new criminal offences or recidivism (47 [94%] of 50 studies); only three studies used informant or self-report data on physical aggression or violent behaviour. Overall, the predictive performance of risk assessment tools was mixed. Most studies reported one discrimination metric, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC); other key performance measures such as calibration, sensitivity, and specificity were not presented. Most studies had a high risk of bias (49 [98%] of 50), partly due to poor analytical approaches. A meta-analysis was conducted for violent recidivism on 29 independent external validations from 19 studies with at least 100 patients. Pooled AUCs for predicting violent outcomes ranged from 0·72 (0·65-0·79; I2=0%) for H10, to 0·69 for the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 version 2 (95% CI 0·65-0·72; I2=0%) and Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (0·63-0·75; I2=0%), to 0·64 for the Static-99 (0·53-0·73; I2=45%).InterpretationCurrent violence risk assessment tools in forensic mental health have mixed evidence of predictive performance. Forensic mental health services should review their use of current risk assessment tools and consider implementing those with higher-quality evidence in support.FundingWellcome Trust.

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of acute complications and mortality associated with COVID-19 remains poorly characterized. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and medRxiv were searched up to April 20, 2020, for studies including hospitalized symptomatic adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The secondary outcomes included acute cardiac or kidney injury, shock, coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism. The main analysis was based on data from peer-reviewed studies. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were obtained through meta-analyses.ResultsA total of 44 peer-reviewed studies with 14,866 COVID-19 patients were included. In general, risk of bias was high. All-cause mortality was 10% overall (95% PI, 2 to 39%; 1687/14203 patients; 43 studies), 34% in patients admitted to intensive care units (95% PI, 8 to 76%; 659/2368 patients; 10 studies), 83% in patients requiring invasive ventilation (95% PI, 1 to 100%; 180/220 patients; 6 studies), and 75% in patients who developed ARDS (95% PI, 35 to 94%; 339/455 patients; 11 studies). On average, ARDS occurred in 14% of patients (95% PI, 2 to 59%; 999/6322 patients; 23 studies), acute cardiac injury in 15% (95% PI, 5 to 38%; 452/2389 patients; 10 studies), venous thromboembolism in 15% (95% PI, 0 to 100%; patients; 3 studies), acute kidney injury in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 41%; 318/4682 patients; 15 studies), coagulopathy in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 39%; 223/3370 patients; 9 studies), and shock in 3% (95% PI, 0 to 61%; 203/4309 patients; 13 studies).ConclusionsMortality was very high in critically ill patients based on very low-quality evidence due to striking heterogeneity and risk of bias. The incidence of clinically relevant outcomes was substantial, although reported by only one third of the studies suggesting considerable underreporting.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration ID for this study is CRD42020177243 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=177243 ).

Dataset Information

Instruments for assessing the risk of falls in acute hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Instruments for assessing the risk of falls in acute hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets