↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of falls prevention interventions: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
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.
Title
Efficacy of falls prevention interventions: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-38
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea C Tricco, Elise Cogo, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc, Kathryn M Sibley, Fabio Feldman, Gillian Kerr, Sumit R Majumdar, Susan Jaglal, Sharon E Straus

Abstract

Falls are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults. Although numerous trials of falls prevention interventions have been completed, there is extensive variation in their intervention components and clinical context, such that the key elements of an effective falls prevention program remain unclear to patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. Our objective is to identify the most effective interventions and combinations of interventions that prevent falls though a systematic review and meta-analysis, including a network meta-analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 132 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 21%
Student > Master 22 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Other 12 9%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 17%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Sports and Recreations 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 27 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 October 2013.
All research outputs
#13,154,315
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,385
of 1,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,220
of 197,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#21
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 197,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.