Skip to main content

Table 3 Characteristics of selected studies

From: Instruments for assessing the risk of falls in acute hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study Participants (n = 13284) * Study design Index and comparator test Age Men Women
Mean (SD) (years) n(%) n(%)
TOTAL 69.76 (9.56) * 5504 (41.43%)* 5358 (40.33%)*
Barker 2011 [42] Phase I: 263 patients. Phase II 52 patients Prospective cross-sectional study. Phase I: Assessment of predicitive accuracy; phase II: Assessment on inter-rater agreement. The Northern Hospital Modified STRATIFY (TNH-STRATIFY) vs STRATIFY. 61.32 (20.65) 137 (52.09%) 126 (47.91%)
Chapman 2011 [43] 1540 patients. Descriptive and comparative cross-sectional study. The Maine Medical Center fall risk assessment, the New York-Presbiterian Fall and injury risk assessment tool, Morse Fall Scale and Hendrich II fall risk model. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Ivziku 2011 [44] 179 patients. Descriptive prospective study. Hendrich Fall Risk Model II (HFRM II). 79.47 (9.5) 74 (41.34%) 105 (58.66%)
Kim EAN 2007 [26] Validity study: 5489 patients. Reliability study: 144 patients Prospective descriptive study. Morse Fall Scale (MFS), St Thomas Risk Assessment Tool in Falling Elderly Inpatients (STRATIFY) and Hendrich II Fall Risk Model (HFRM II). 55 (19) 2842 (51.78%) 2647 (48.22%)
Kim KS 2011 [27] 356 patients. Prospective cohort study. Morse Fall Scale (MFS), Bobath Memorial Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Scale (BMFRAS), Johns Hopkins Hospital Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT). 62.6 (n.a.) 201 (56.46%) 155 (43.54%)
Lovallo 2010 [45] 1148 patients. Prospective observational study. Conley Scale and Hendrich Fall Risk Model. 69 (10.33) 680 (59.23%) 468 (40.77%)
Milisen 2007 [23] Total sample: 2568 patients; surgical wards: 875 patients; medical wards: 1006 patients. Prospective multicenter study. St. Thomas’s Risk Assessment Tool in Falling Elderly Inpatients (STRATIFY). Medical wards: 64.1 (18); Surgical wards: 58.2 (17.1) Medical wards: 494 (49.10%); Surgical wards: 439 (50.17%) Medical wards: 512 (50.9%); Surgical wards: 436 (49.83%)
Oliver 1997 [15] Phase 1: 116 cases and 116 controls; phase 2 (local validation): 217 patients; phase 3 (remote validation): 331 patients. Phase 1: a prospective casecontrol study. Phases 2 and 3: prospective cohort study. Development of STRATIFY. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Papaioannou 2004 [20] 620 patients. Prospective validation cohort study. Weigthed STRATIFY vs Unweighted STRATIFY. 78 (7.7) 282 (45.48%) 338 (54.52%)
Schmid 1990 [46] Phase 1: 204 patients; phase 2: 334 patients. Phase 1: a retrospective casecontrol study. Phase 2: prospective cohort study. Development of a new fall risk assessment tool. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Schwendimann 2006 A [22] 386 patients. Prospective cohort study. Morse Fall Scale (MFS). 70.3 (18.5) 156 (40.41%) 230 (59.59%)
Schwendimann 2007 [25] 275 patients. Prospective cohort study. Morse Fall Scale (MFS). 80.3 (12.4) 99 (36%) 176 (64%)
Vassallo 2005 [47] 135 patients. Prospective, open, observational study. STRATIFY, Downton, Tullamore, and Tinetti. 83.8 (8.01) 49 (36.3%) 86 (63.7%)
Walsh 2010 [48] 130 inpatients in the predictive accuracy evaluation; 25 and 35 inpatients for the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability analyses. Prospective cohort study of predictive validity and observational investigation of intra- and inter-rater reliability. A new instrument (Western Health Falls Risk Assessment, WHeFRA) was compared with ‘gold standard tool’ (STRATIFY). 75 (29–94)** 51 (39.23%) 79 (60.77%)
  1. Number of participants, study design, index and comparator test, mean age and gender of selected studies.
  2. *Calculations with the available data.
  3. **This study provided the age range but not SD.