Predicting falls in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review of prognostic models

• Published in: BMJ open Vol. 11; no. 5; p. e044170
• Main Authors: Gade, Gustav Valentin, Jørgensen, Martin Grønbech, Ryg, Jesper, Riis, Johannes, Thomsen, Katja, Masud, Tahir, Andersen, Stig
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 04-05-2021; BMJ Publishing Group
• Series: Original research
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bias; Calibration; Clinical practice guidelines; Datasets; Falls; Geriatric Medicine; Humans; Independent Living; Medical prognosis; Older people; Population; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Public health; Systematic review; Validation studies; statistics & research methods; geriatric medicine; public health
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044170

ObjectiveTo systematically review and critically appraise prognostic models for falls in community-dwelling older adults.Eligibility criteriaProspective cohort studies with any follow-up period. Studies had to develop or validate multifactorial prognostic models for falls in community-dwelling older adults (60+ years). Models had to be applicable for screening in a general population setting.Information sourceMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Web of Science for studies published in English, Danish, Norwegian or Swedish until January 2020. Sources also included trial registries, clinical guidelines, reference lists of included papers, along with contacting clinical experts to locate published studies.Data extraction and risk of biasTwo authors performed all review stages independently. Data extraction followed the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist. Risk of bias assessments on participants, predictors, outcomes and analysis methods followed Prediction study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool.ResultsAfter screening 11 789 studies, 30 were eligible for inclusion (n=86 369 participants). Median age of participants ranged from 67.5 to 83.0 years. Falls incidences varied from 5.9% to 59%. Included studies reported 69 developed and three validated prediction models. Most frequent falls predictors were prior falls, age, sex, measures of gait, balance and strength, along with vision and disability. The area under the curve was available for 40 (55.6%) models, ranging from 0.49 to 0.87. Validated models’ The area under the curve ranged from 0.62 to 0.69. All models had a high risk of bias, mostly due to limitations in statistical methods, outcome assessments and restrictive eligibility criteria.ConclusionsAn abundance of prognostic models on falls risk have been developed, but with a wide range in discriminatory performance. All models exhibited a high risk of bias rendering them unreliable for prediction in clinical practice. Future prognostic prediction models should comply with recent recommendations such as Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019124021.