↓ Skip to main content

What works in falls prevention in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 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
What works in falls prevention in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0683-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith D. Hill, Plaiwan Suttanon, Sang-I Lin, William W.N. Tsang, Asmidawati Ashari, Tengku Aizan Abd Hamid, Kaela Farrier, Elissa Burton

Abstract

There is strong research evidence for falls prevention among older people in the community setting, although most is from Western countries. Differences between countries (eg sunlight exposure, diet, environment, exercise preferences) may influence the success of implementing falls prevention approaches in Asian countries that have been shown to be effective elsewhere in the world. The aim of this review is to evaluate the scope and effectiveness of falls prevention randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the Asian region. RCTs investigating falls prevention interventions conducted in Asian countries from (i) the most recent (2012) Cochrane community setting falls prevention review, and (ii) subsequent published RCTs meeting the same criteria were identified, classified and grouped according to the ProFANE intervention classification. Characteristics of included trials were extracted from both the Cochrane review and original publications. Where ≥2 studies investigated an intervention type in the Asian region, a meta-analysis was performed. Fifteen of 159 RCTs in the Cochrane review were conducted in the Asian region (9%), and a further 11 recent RCTs conducted in Asia were identified (total 26 Asian studies: median 160 participants, mean age:75.1, female:71.9%). Exercise (15 RCTs) and home assessment/modification (n = 2) were the only single interventions with ≥2 RCTs. Intervention types with ≥1 effective RCT in reducing fall outcomes were exercise (6 effective), home modification (1 effective), and medication (vitamin D) (1 effective). One multiple and one multifactorial intervention also had positive falls outcomes. Meta-analysis of exercise interventions identified significant benefit (number of fallers: Odds Ratio 0.43 [0.34,0.53]; number of falls: 0.35 [0.21,0.57]; and number of fallers injured: 0.50 [0.35,0.71]); but multifactorial interventions did not reach significance (number of fallers OR = 0.57 [0.23,1.44]). There is a small but growing research base of falls prevention RCTs from Asian countries, with exercise approaches being most researched and effective. For other interventions shown to be effective elsewhere, consideration of local issues is required to ensure that research and programs implemented in these countries are effective, and relevant to the local context, people, and health system. There is also a need for further high quality, appropriately powered falls prevention trials in Asian countries.

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 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 273 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 13%
Student > Master 29 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Lecturer 17 6%
Researcher 16 6%
Other 63 23%
Unknown 92 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 70 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 14%
Sports and Recreations 8 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 106 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,750,740
of 25,366,663 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,901
of 3,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,626
of 455,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#43
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,366,663 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 455,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.