Intervenciones para la prevención de caídas en pacientes de edad avanzada en centros de atención y hospitales
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub3Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 12 diciembre 2012see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Lesiones óseas, articulares y musculares
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
ID Cameron, the guarantor for this review, conceived and designed the review and for this update carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction, assisted with categorisation of trial interventions using the ProFaNE taxonomy, and commented on drafts of the review.
LD Gillespie conceived the review and for this update coordinated the review, modified the search strategies, carried out the searches, screened search results and obtained papers, screened retrieved papers against inclusion criteria, carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction, entered data into RevMan, and wrote the review.
MC Robertson carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction for all newly included trials, managed data and carried out statistical calculations, wrote the economic evaluation section and Appendix 9, and wrote the review.
GR Murray conceived and designed the review, and for this update screened retrieved papers against inclusion criteria, updated the Characteristics of included studies, Appendix 3, Appendix 4 and Appendix 5, assisted with categorisation of trial interventions using the ProFaNE taxonomy, and commented on drafts of the review.
KD Hill carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction, and commented on drafts of the review.
RG Cumming carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction, and commented on drafts of the review.
N Kerse carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction, and commented on drafts of the review.
See Appendix 10 for 'Contribution of authors' for the previous version of this review.
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
University of Sydney, Australia.
Salary, administration, computing, and library services (IDC, RGC)
-
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Computing, administration, and library services (LDG, MCR)
-
Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health Network, Warrawong, Australia.
Computing and library services (GM)
-
Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Salary, administration, computing, and library services (KDH)
-
University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Salary, administration, computing and library services (NK)
External sources
-
National Health and Medical Research Council, Practitioner Fellowship, Australia.
Salary contribution (IAC)
Declarations of interest
Four review authors were investigators for six included studies: ID Cameron and RG Cumming (Cumming 2008; Sambrook 2012); KD Hill (Haines 2004; Haines 2011); N Kerse (Kerse 2004; Kerse 2008). Authors did not assess risk of bias in their own trials.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Lindsey Elstub, Joanne Elliott, and Catherine Deering for their support at the editorial base. We thank the following for their useful and constructive comments on earlier versions of the protocol and/or review: Assoc Prof Jacqueline Close, Dr Simon Gates, Dr Helen Handoll, Prof Peter Herbison, Prof Finbarr Martin, Assoc Prof Cathie Sherrington, and Dr Janet Wale. We are grateful to Prof Sarah Lamb, Prof Clemens Becker and Dr Klaus Pfeiffer for their assistance with use of the ProFaNE taxonomy, and to Prof Peter Herbison for his advice on statistical issues. We are also grateful to Prof William Gillespie for assessing the risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment separately for the previously included studies. In addition, we would like to thank Geraldine Wallbank of the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney for her assistance in completing Appendix 6 for this update.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2018 Sep 07 | Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals | Review | Ian D Cameron, Suzanne M Dyer, Claire E Panagoda, Geoffrey R Murray, Keith D Hill, Robert G Cumming, Ngaire Kerse | |
| 2012 Dec 12 | Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals | Review | Ian D Cameron, Lesley D Gillespie, M Clare Robertson, Geoff R Murray, Keith D Hill, Robert G Cumming, Ngaire Kerse | |
| 2010 Jan 20 | Interventions for preventing falls in older people in nursing care facilities and hospitals | Review | Ian D Cameron, Geoff R Murray, Lesley D Gillespie, M Clare Robertson, Keith D Hill, Robert G Cumming, Ngaire Kerse | |
| 2005 Jul 20 | Interventions for preventing falls in older people in residential care facilities and hospitals | Protocol | Ian D Cameron, Geoff R Murray, Lesley D Gillespie, Robert G Cumming, M Clare Robertson, Keith D Hill, Ngaire Kerse | |
Differences between protocol and review
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Trials including only participants after stroke were excluded as a protocol for a Cochrane review on interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke has been published (Verheyden 2010).
Separation of analyses by setting
We reported the results for care facilities and hospitals separately as the primary analyses because this is likely to be more useful to the users of this review. Interventions will be organised differently in these two types of settings and there may be different effectiveness of similar interventions between the two settings.
'Risk of bias' assessment
The protocol was completed and submitted for publication prior to the general release of RevMan 5 and the supporting version of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.0) in February 2008. In the protocol we stated that we would assess methodological quality using the 11‐item tool used in Gillespie 2003.
For this version of the review we have used three criteria from The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias: 'Random sequence generation', 'Allocation concealment', and 'Blinding of outcome assessment', and eight items from the 11‐item tool (seeAppendix 2). The items relating to allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors have not been used (now redundant). Also the item relating to appropriateness of duration of clinical surveillance was not used due to very poor agreement between assessors during preparation of the first version of this review.
Other changes
Interventions were classified using the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) fall prevention taxonomy (Lamb 2007; Lamb 2011). Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity where appropriate.
