↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy of fall-risk-increasing drug (FRID) withdrawal for the prevention of falls and fall-related complications: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
The efficacy of fall-risk-increasing drug (FRID) withdrawal for the prevention of falls and fall-related complications: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0426-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin Yusen Lee, Anne Holbrook

Abstract

Despite limited evidence of effectiveness, withdrawal (discontinuation or dose reduction) of high risk medications known as "fall-risk increasing drugs" (FRIDs) is typically conducted as a fall prevention strategy based on presumptive benefit. Our objective is to determine the efficacy of fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) withdrawal on the prevention of falls and fall-related complications. We will search for all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of FRID withdrawal compared to usual care on the rate of falls, incidence of falls, fall-related injuries, fall-related fractures, fall-related hospitalizations, or adverse effects related to the intervention in adults aged 65 years or older. Electronic database searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL. A grey literature search will be conducted including clinical trial registries and conference proceedings and abstracts. Two reviewers will independently perform in duplicate citation screening, full-text review, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. Conflicts will be resolved through team discussion or by a third reviewer if no consensus can be reached. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria will be used to independently rate overall confidence in effect estimates for each outcome. Results will be synthesized descriptively, and a random effects meta-analysis will be conducted for each outcome if studies are deemed similar methodologically, clinically, and statistically. We will attempt to determine whether a FRID withdrawal strategy alone is effective at preventing falls in older adults. Our results will be used to optimize and focus fall prevention strategies and initiatives internationally with a goal of improving the health of older adults. PROSPERO CRD42016040203.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 28 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 February 2017.
All research outputs
#18,535,896
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,789
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,618
of 310,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#46
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 310,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.