Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Related content

Jump to:

Related reviews and protocols

Topics

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining medical care fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining medical care fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining fracture fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining fracture fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 4 Number sustaining injury fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 4 Number sustaining injury fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 5 Number sustaining two or more falls.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 5 Number sustaining two or more falls.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 6 Mean number of falls.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 6 Mean number of falls.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 7 Number sustaining musculoskeletal injury during study.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control, Outcome 7 Number sustaining musculoskeletal injury during study.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 2 Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 2 Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining medical care fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining medical care fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 2 Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining fracture fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining fracture fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 2 Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 4 Number sustaining injury fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 4 Number sustaining injury fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 2 Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 5 Number sustaining two or more falls.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 5 Number sustaining two or more falls.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 3 Exercise plus incontinence management vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Exercise plus incontinence management vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 3 Exercise plus incontinence management vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining fracture fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Exercise plus incontinence management vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining fracture fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 3 Exercise plus incontinence management vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining injury fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Exercise plus incontinence management vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining injury fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 4 Home safety intervention alone vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Home safety intervention alone vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 5 Home safety intervention plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Home safety intervention plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 5 Home safety intervention plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining two or more falls.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Home safety intervention plus medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining two or more falls.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 6 Home safety intervention plus fall prevention classes vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Home safety intervention plus fall prevention classes vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 7 Medication withdrawl vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Medication withdrawl vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 7 Medication withdrawl vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining medical care fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Medication withdrawl vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining medical care fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 7 Medication withdrawl vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining a fracture fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Medication withdrawl vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining a fracture fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 7 Medication withdrawl vs control, Outcome 4 Number sustaining injury fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Medication withdrawl vs control, Outcome 4 Number sustaining injury fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 7 Medication withdrawl vs control, Outcome 5 Number sustaining two or more falls.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Medication withdrawl vs control, Outcome 5 Number sustaining two or more falls.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 8 Nutritional supplementation vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Nutritional supplementation vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 9 Vitamin D vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Vitamin D vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 9 Vitamin D vs control, Outcome 2 Mean number of falls.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 Vitamin D vs control, Outcome 2 Mean number of falls.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 9 Vitamin D vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining fracture fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.3

Comparison 9 Vitamin D vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining fracture fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 10 HRT plus calcium vs calcium alone, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 HRT plus calcium vs calcium alone, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 11 Pharmacological therapies vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 Pharmacological therapies vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 12 Vision assessment and referral vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 Vision assessment and referral vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 13 Cardiac pacing vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants with syncope.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.1

Comparison 13 Cardiac pacing vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants with syncope.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 13 Cardiac pacing vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining fracture fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.2

Comparison 13 Cardiac pacing vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining fracture fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 13 Cardiac pacing vs control, Outcome 3 Mean number of falls.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.3

Comparison 13 Cardiac pacing vs control, Outcome 3 Mean number of falls.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 14 Exercise, visual correction, and home safety intervention (community dwelling), Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.1

Comparison 14 Exercise, visual correction, and home safety intervention (community dwelling), Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 15 Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 15.1

Comparison 15 Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 15 Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining medical care fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 15.2

Comparison 15 Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 2 Number sustaining medical care fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 15 Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining fracture fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 15.3

Comparison 15 Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 3 Number sustaining fracture fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 15 Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 4 Number sustaining injury fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 15.4

Comparison 15 Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 4 Number sustaining injury fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 15 Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 5 Number sustaining two or more falls.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 15.5

Comparison 15 Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 5 Number sustaining two or more falls.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 16 Identification bracelets for high risk hospital patients vs no bracelet, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 16.1

Comparison 16 Identification bracelets for high risk hospital patients vs no bracelet, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 16 Identification bracelets for high risk hospital patients vs no bracelet, Outcome 2 Number sustaining injury fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 16.2

Comparison 16 Identification bracelets for high risk hospital patients vs no bracelet, Outcome 2 Number sustaining injury fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 16 Identification bracelets for high risk hospital patients vs no bracelet, Outcome 3 Time to first fall.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 16.3

Comparison 16 Identification bracelets for high risk hospital patients vs no bracelet, Outcome 3 Time to first fall.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab

Comparison 17 Vinyl vs carpet flooring in rehabilitation wards, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 17.1

Comparison 17 Vinyl vs carpet flooring in rehabilitation wards, Outcome 1 Number of participants falling.

Navigate to figure in ReviewOpen in new tab
Table 1. Quality assessment items and possible scores

Items and scores

Item A: Was the assigned treatment adequately concealed prior to allocation?
3= Method did not allow disclosure of assignment
2= Small but possible chance of disclosure of assignment
1= States random, but no description or quasi‐randomised

Item B: Were the outcomes of patients who withdrew described and included in the analysis (intention to treat)?
3= Intention to treat analysis based on all cases randomised possible or carried out
2= States number and reasons for withdrawal but intention to treat analysis not possible
1= Inadequate detail

Item C: Were the outcome assessors blinded to treatment status?
3= Effective action taken to blind assessors
2= Small or moderate chance of unblinding of assessors
1= Not mentioned or not possible

Item D: Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry?
3= Good comparability of groups, or confounding adjusted for in analysis
2= Confounding small; mentioned but not adjusted for
1= Large potential for confounding, or not discussed

Item E: Were the subjects blind to assignment status after allocation?
3= Effective action taken to blind subjects
2= Small or moderate chance of unblinding of subjects
1= Not possible, or not mentioned (unless double‐blind), or possible, but not done

Item F: Were the treatment providers blind to assignment status?
3= Effective action taken to blind treatment providers
2= Small or moderate chance of unblinding of treatment providers
1= Not possible, or not mentioned, or possible, but not done

Item G: Were care programmes, other than the trial options, identical?
3= Care programmes clearly identical
2= Clear but trivial differences
1= Not mentioned, or clear and important differences in care programmes

Item H: Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined?
3= Clearly defined
2= Poorly defined
1= Not defined

Item J: Were the outcome measures used clearly defined?
3= Clearly defined
2= Poorly defined
1= Not defined

Item K: Was ascertainment of fall and other outcomes reliable?
3= Diary or active registration
2= Interval recall
1= Participant recall at end of study period

Item L: Was the duration of surveillance clinically appropriate?
3= 1 year or more (duration of stay for hospital studies)
2= Less than 1 year
1= Not defined

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Quality assessment items and possible scores
Navigate to table in Review
Table 2. Quality assessment scores

Study id

Item A

Item B

Item C

Item D

Item E

Item F

Item G

Item H

Item J

Item K

Item L

Armstrong 1996

3

3

2

2

1

1

3

3

2

1

2

Becker 2003

3

3

1

2

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

Buchner 1997

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

3

3

3

2

Bischoff 2003

2

3

3

3

3

3

1

3

3

3

3

Campbell 1997

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

2

3

3

3

Campbell 1999

3

3

3

3

2

2

1

3

3

3

3

Carpenter 1990

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Carter 1997

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

3

3

2

3

Carter 2002

2

2

1

3

1

1

3

3

3

3

2

Cerny 1998

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

Close 1999

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

Coleman 1999

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

Cornillon 2002

2

3

1

3

1

1

1

3

1

3

3

Cumming 1999

3

3

1

3

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

Dawson‐Hughes 1997

2

3

3

1

3

3

2

3

3

3

3

Day 2002

3

3

1

3

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

Donald 2000

2

3

1

3

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

Ebrahim 1997

3

2

1

2

1

1

2

3

2

2

3

Fabacher 1994

3

2

1

3

1

1

1

3

2

1

3

Fiatarone 1997

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

2

2

Gallagher 1996

1

1

1

3

1

1

3

3

3

3

2

Gray‐Donald 1995

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

3

3

2

2

Hogan 2001

3

3

1

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

Hornbrook 1994

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

Jensen 2002

3

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

3

3

3

Jitapunkul 1998

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

Kenny 2001

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

Kingston 2001

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

Latham 2003

3

3

3

3

3

2

1

3

2

3

2

Lightbody 2002

2

2

1

2

1

1

3

3

3

3

2

Lord 1995

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

3

2

3

Mayo 1994

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

McMurdo 1997

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

3

McMurdo 2000

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

Means 1996

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

Mulrow 1994

3

2

3

2

2

1

2

3

3

3

2

Newbury 2001

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

Nikolaus 2003

2

3

3

2

1

1

1

2

3

3

3

Nowalk 2001

1

2

1

3

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

Pardessus 2002

2

3

1

3

1

1

1

3

1

2

3

Pereira 1998

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

2

1

3

Pfeifer 2000

2

2

1

3

3

2

2

3

3

2

3

Ray 1997

2

3

3

3

1

1

1

3

3

2

3

Reinsch 1992

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

3

Robertson 2001

3

3

1

3

1

1

2

3

3

3

3

Rubenstein 1990

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

Rubenstein 2000

2

3

1

2

1

1

3

3

1

2

2

Ryan 1996

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

Sato 1999

2

2

3

3

3

3

1

3

3

2

3

Schnelle 2003

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

3

1

3

2

Shaw 2003

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

Steinberg 2000

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

Stevens 2001

2

3

3

3

3

1

3

3

3

3

3

Tideiksaar 1993

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

Tinetti 1994

2

2

2

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

van Hastregt 2000

1

2

1

3

1

1

3

3

1

3

3

van Rossum 1993

3

3

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

Vassallo 2002

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

3

Vellas 1991

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

2

2

1

2

Vetter 1992

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

Wagner 1994

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

3

1

3

Wolf 1996

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

2
Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Quality assessment scores
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 1. Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

15

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Community dwelling ‐ untargeted

9

1387

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.79, 1.01]

1.2 Community dwelling (strength, balance, walking) ‐ individually targeted

3

566

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.66, 0.98]

1.3 Community dwelling (strength training) ‐ individually targeted

1

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.73, 1.16]

1.4 Institutional care ‐ individually targeted

2

248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.74, 1.41]

2 Number sustaining medical care fall Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.2 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Institutional care ‐ individually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Number sustaining fracture fall Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Community dwelling ‐ untargeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Number sustaining injury fall Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Community dwelling ‐ untargeted

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

3

546

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.51, 0.89]

4.3 Insitutional care ‐ individually targeted

1

194

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.5 [0.75, 16.43]

5 Number sustaining two or more falls Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Community dwelling ‐ untargeted

2

365

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.52, 1.18]

5.2 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

3

566

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.54, 1.05]

6 Mean number of falls Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Community dwelling ‐ untargeted

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Number sustaining musculoskeletal injury during study Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Exercise/physical therapy alone vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 2. Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number sustaining medical care fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Community dwelling ‐ indvidually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Number sustaining fracture fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Number sustaining injury fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Number sustaining two or more falls Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Exercise plus medication withdrawal vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 3. Exercise plus incontinence management vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Number sustaining fracture fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Number sustaining injury fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Exercise plus incontinence management vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 4. Home safety intervention alone vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Community dwelling ‐ no falls in year prior to randomisation

1

324

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.75, 1.41]

1.2 Community dwelling ‐ falling history in year prior to randomisation

3

374

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.54, 0.81]

1.3 Community dwelling ‐ fallers and non‐fallers in year prior to randomisation

3

1163

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.74, 0.96]
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Home safety intervention alone vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 5. Home safety intervention plus medication withdrawal vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 High intensity intervention

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Low intensity intervention

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number sustaining two or more falls Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 High intensity intervention

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Low intensity intervention

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Home safety intervention plus medication withdrawal vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 6. Home safety intervention plus fall prevention classes vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Group instruction vs control

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 One on one instruction session

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 6. Home safety intervention plus fall prevention classes vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 7. Medication withdrawl vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number sustaining medical care fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Number sustaining a fracture fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Community dwelling ‐ indvidually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Number sustaining injury fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Number sustaining two or more falls Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Community dwelling ‐ individually targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 7. Medication withdrawl vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 8. Nutritional supplementation vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Community dwelling ‐ targeted

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 8. Nutritional supplementation vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 9. Vitamin D vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

3

461

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.70, 1.08]

1.1 Community dwelling ‐ targeted

2

372

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.71, 1.13]

1.2 Long stay geriatric care

1

89

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.43, 1.33]

2 Mean number of falls Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Community dwelling ‐ targeted

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Number sustaining fracture fall Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Community dwelling ‐ targeted

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 9. Vitamin D vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 10. HRT plus calcium vs calcium alone

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Community dwelling ‐ post fracture

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 10. HRT plus calcium vs calcium alone
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 11. Pharmacological therapies vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 11. Pharmacological therapies vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 12. Vision assessment and referral vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 12. Vision assessment and referral vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 13. Cardiac pacing vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants with syncope Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Number sustaining fracture fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Mean number of falls Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 13. Cardiac pacing vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 14. Exercise, visual correction, and home safety intervention (community dwelling)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Exercise, visual correction and home safety vs control

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Exercise and visual correction vs control

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.3 Exercise and home safety intervention vs control

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 14. Exercise, visual correction, and home safety intervention (community dwelling)
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 15. Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

11

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Community dwelling ‐ geriatric screening (fallers and non fallers)

4

1651

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.63, 0.85]

1.2 Community dwelling ‐ targeting known fallers or fall risk factors only

5

1176

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.76, 0.98]

1.3 Institutional care ‐ targeting known fallers or fall risk factors only

1

160

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.84, 1.11]

1.4 Cognitively impaired ‐ any residence

1

274

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.81, 1.05]

2 Number sustaining medical care fall Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Community dwelling ‐ geriatric screening (fallers and non fallers)

1

1242

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.48, 1.03]

2.2 Community dwelling ‐ targeting known fallers or fall risk factors only

2

415

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.26 [0.71, 2.23]

3 Number sustaining fracture fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Institutional care ‐ targeting known fallers

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Number sustaining injury fall Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Community dwelling ‐ geriatric screening (fallers and non fallers)

1

1242

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.51, 0.93]

4.2 Community dwelling ‐ targeting known fallers or fall risk factors only

2

556

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.61, 1.44]

4.3 Institutional care ‐ targeting known fallers or fall risk factors

1

160

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.52, 3.37]

5 Number sustaining two or more falls Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Community dwelling ‐ targeting known fallers or fall risk factors only

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 15. Assessment followed by multifactorial intervention vs control
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 16. Identification bracelets for high risk hospital patients vs no bracelet

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2 Number sustaining injury fall Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3 Time to first fall Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 16. Identification bracelets for high risk hospital patients vs no bracelet
Navigate to table in Review
Comparison 17. Vinyl vs carpet flooring in rehabilitation wards

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants falling Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figures and Tables -
Comparison 17. Vinyl vs carpet flooring in rehabilitation wards
Navigate to table in Review