Deakin home > Deakin University Library > Deakin Research Online > Design-related bias in hospital fall risk screening tool predictive accuracy evaluations: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Design-related bias in hospital fall risk screening tool predictive accuracy evaluations: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haines, Terry, Hill, Keith, Walsh, Willeke and Osborne, Richard 2007, Design-related bias in hospital fall risk screening tool predictive accuracy evaluations: systematic review and meta-analysis., The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 664-672.

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your DRO credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Design-related bias in hospital fall risk screening tool predictive accuracy evaluations: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Author(s) Haines, Terry
Hill, Keith
Walsh, Willeke
Osborne, Richard
Journal name The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences
Volume number 62
Issue number 6
Start page 664
End page 672
Publisher Gerontological Society of America
Place of publication Washington, D.C.
Publication date 2007-06
ISSN 1079-5006
1758-535X
Summary Introduction: Fall risk screening tools are frequently used as a part of falls prevention programs in hospitals. Design-related bias in evaluations of tool predictive accuracy could lead to overoptimistic results, which would then contribute to program failure in practice.

Methods: A systematic review was undertaken. Two blind reviewers assessed the methodology of relevant publications into a four-point classification system adapted from multiple sources. The association between study design classification and reported results was examined using linear regression with clustering based on screening tool and robust variance estimates with point estimates of Youden Index (= sensitivity + specificity - 1) as the dependent variable. Meta-analysis was then performed pooling data from prospective studies.

Results: Thirty-five publications met inclusion criteria, containing 51 evaluations of fall risk screening tools. Twenty evaluations were classified as retrospective validation evaluations, 11 as prospective (temporal) validation evaluations, and 20 as prospective (external) validation evaluations. Retrospective evaluations had significantly higher Youden Indices (point estimate [95% confidence interval]: 0.22 [0.11, 0.33]). Pooled Youden Indices from prospective evaluations demonstrated the STRATIFY, Morse Falls Scale, and nursing staff clinical judgment to have comparable accuracy.

Discussion: Practitioners should exercise caution in comparing validity of fall risk assessment tools where the evaluation has been limited to retrospective classifications of methodology. Heterogeneity between studies indicates that the Morse Falls Scale and STRATIFY may still be useful in particular settings, but that widespread adoption of either is unlikely to generate benefits significantly greater than that of nursing staff clinical judgment.
Language eng
Field of Research 110399 Clinical Sciences not elsewhere classified
Socio Economic Objective 970111 Expanding Knowledge in the Medical and Health Sciences
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2007, Gerontological Society of America
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30019390

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Health and Social Development
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Scopus Citation Count Cited 56 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 645 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Fri, 11 Sep 2009, 16:09:33 EST by Lorraine Driscoll