You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Instruments for assessing the risk of falls in acute hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-122 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marta Aranda-Gallardo, Jose M Morales-Asencio, Jose C Canca-Sanchez, Silvia Barrero-Sojo, Claudia Perez-Jimenez, Angeles Morales-Fernandez, Margarita Enriquez de Luna-Rodriguez, Ana B Moya-Suarez, Ana M Mora-Banderas |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 208 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 42 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 8% |
| Researcher | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 42 | 20% |
| Unknown | 44 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 63 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 22% |
| Engineering | 9 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 27 | 13% |
| Unknown | 54 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2013.
All research outputs
#5,392,938
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,299
of 7,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,936
of 199,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#33
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.