Cargando…

Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Falls are a major threat to older adults worldwide. Although various effective interventions have been developed, their comparative effectiveness remains unreported. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the most effective interventions to prev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheng, Peixia, Tan, Liheng, Ning, Peishan, Li, Li, Gao, Yuyan, Wu, Yue, Schwebel, David C., Chu, Haitao, Yin, Huaiqiong, Hu, Guoqing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5877043/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29534531
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030498
_version_ 1783310618356350976
author Cheng, Peixia
Tan, Liheng
Ning, Peishan
Li, Li
Gao, Yuyan
Wu, Yue
Schwebel, David C.
Chu, Haitao
Yin, Huaiqiong
Hu, Guoqing
author_facet Cheng, Peixia
Tan, Liheng
Ning, Peishan
Li, Li
Gao, Yuyan
Wu, Yue
Schwebel, David C.
Chu, Haitao
Yin, Huaiqiong
Hu, Guoqing
author_sort Cheng, Peixia
collection PubMed
description Background: Falls are a major threat to older adults worldwide. Although various effective interventions have been developed, their comparative effectiveness remains unreported. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the most effective interventions to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults aged 60 and over. Combined odds ratio (OR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI) were calculated. Results: A total of 49 trials involving 27,740 participants and 9271 fallers were included. Compared to usual care, multifactorial interventions (MFI) demonstrated the greatest efficacy (OR: 0.64, 95% CrI: 0.53 to 0.77) followed by interventions combining education and exercise (EDU + EXC) (OR: 0.65, 95% CrI: 0.38 to 1.00) and interventions combining exercise and hazard assessment and modification (EXC + HAM) (OR: 0.66, 95% CrI: 0.40 to 1.04). The effect of medical care performed the worst (OR: 1.02, 95% CrI: 0.78 to 1.34). Model fit was good, inconsistency was low, and publication bias was considered absent. The overall quality of included trials was high. The pooled odds ratios and ranking probabilities remained relatively stable across all sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: MFI and exercise appear to be effective to reduce falls among older adults, and should be considered first as service delivery options. Further investigation is necessary to verify effectiveness and suitableness of the strategies to at-risk populations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5877043
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58770432018-04-09 Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Cheng, Peixia Tan, Liheng Ning, Peishan Li, Li Gao, Yuyan Wu, Yue Schwebel, David C. Chu, Haitao Yin, Huaiqiong Hu, Guoqing Int J Environ Res Public Health Review Background: Falls are a major threat to older adults worldwide. Although various effective interventions have been developed, their comparative effectiveness remains unreported. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the most effective interventions to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults aged 60 and over. Combined odds ratio (OR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI) were calculated. Results: A total of 49 trials involving 27,740 participants and 9271 fallers were included. Compared to usual care, multifactorial interventions (MFI) demonstrated the greatest efficacy (OR: 0.64, 95% CrI: 0.53 to 0.77) followed by interventions combining education and exercise (EDU + EXC) (OR: 0.65, 95% CrI: 0.38 to 1.00) and interventions combining exercise and hazard assessment and modification (EXC + HAM) (OR: 0.66, 95% CrI: 0.40 to 1.04). The effect of medical care performed the worst (OR: 1.02, 95% CrI: 0.78 to 1.34). Model fit was good, inconsistency was low, and publication bias was considered absent. The overall quality of included trials was high. The pooled odds ratios and ranking probabilities remained relatively stable across all sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: MFI and exercise appear to be effective to reduce falls among older adults, and should be considered first as service delivery options. Further investigation is necessary to verify effectiveness and suitableness of the strategies to at-risk populations. MDPI 2018-03-12 2018-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5877043/ /pubmed/29534531 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030498 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Cheng, Peixia
Tan, Liheng
Ning, Peishan
Li, Li
Gao, Yuyan
Wu, Yue
Schwebel, David C.
Chu, Haitao
Yin, Huaiqiong
Hu, Guoqing
Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
title Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
title_full Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
title_short Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
title_sort comparative effectiveness of published interventions for elderly fall prevention: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5877043/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29534531
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030498
work_keys_str_mv AT chengpeixia comparativeeffectivenessofpublishedinterventionsforelderlyfallpreventionasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT tanliheng comparativeeffectivenessofpublishedinterventionsforelderlyfallpreventionasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT ningpeishan comparativeeffectivenessofpublishedinterventionsforelderlyfallpreventionasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT lili comparativeeffectivenessofpublishedinterventionsforelderlyfallpreventionasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT gaoyuyan comparativeeffectivenessofpublishedinterventionsforelderlyfallpreventionasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT wuyue comparativeeffectivenessofpublishedinterventionsforelderlyfallpreventionasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT schwebeldavidc comparativeeffectivenessofpublishedinterventionsforelderlyfallpreventionasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT chuhaitao comparativeeffectivenessofpublishedinterventionsforelderlyfallpreventionasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT yinhuaiqiong comparativeeffectivenessofpublishedinterventionsforelderlyfallpreventionasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT huguoqing comparativeeffectivenessofpublishedinterventionsforelderlyfallpreventionasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis