Suppr超能文献

跌倒风险评估措施:一项分析性综述。

Fall risk assessment measures: an analytic review.

作者信息

Perell K L, Nelson A, Goldman R L, Luther S L, Prieto-Lewis N, Rubenstein L Z

机构信息

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Service, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System - West Los Angeles Healthcare Center, California 90073, USA.

出版信息

J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Dec;56(12):M761-6. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.12.m761.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinicians are often unaware of the many existing scales for identifying fall risk and are uncertain about how to select an appropriate one. Our purpose was to summarize existing fall risk assessment scales to enable more informed choices regarding their use.

METHODS

After a systematic literature search, 21 articles published from 1984 through 2000 describing 20 fall risk assessments were reviewed independently for content and validation by a panel of five reviewers using a standardized review form. Fourteen were institution-focused nursing assessment scales, and six were functional assessment scales.

RESULTS

The majority of the scales were developed for elderly populations, mainly in hospital or nursing home settings. The patient characteristics assessed were quite similar across the nursing assessment forms. The time to complete the form varied from less than 1 minute to 80 minutes. For those scales with reported diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity varied from 43% to 100% (median = 80%), and specificity varied from 38% to 96% (median = 75%). Several scales with superior diagnostic characteristics were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of fall risk assessment tools are readily available and assess similar patient characteristics. Although their diagnostic accuracy and overall usefulness showed wide variability, there are several scales that can be used with confidence as part of an effective falls prevention program. Consequently, there should be little need for facilities to develop their own scales. To continue to develop fall risk assessments unique to individual facilities may be counterproductive because scores will not be comparable across facilities.

摘要

背景

临床医生常常不了解现有的众多用于识别跌倒风险的量表,并且不确定如何选择合适的量表。我们的目的是总结现有的跌倒风险评估量表,以便在使用时能做出更明智的选择。

方法

在进行系统的文献检索后,由五名评审员组成的小组使用标准化评审表,对1984年至2000年发表的21篇描述20种跌倒风险评估的文章进行了独立的内容和效度评审。其中14种是针对机构的护理评估量表,6种是功能评估量表。

结果

大多数量表是针对老年人群开发的,主要用于医院或养老院环境。在护理评估表中评估的患者特征非常相似。完成表格的时间从不到1分钟到80分钟不等。对于那些报告了诊断准确性的量表,敏感性从43%到100%不等(中位数 = 80%),特异性从38%到96%不等(中位数 = 75%)。确定了几种具有卓越诊断特征的量表。

结论

有大量现成的跌倒风险评估工具,且评估的患者特征相似。尽管它们的诊断准确性和整体实用性差异很大,但有几种量表可以作为有效预防跌倒计划的一部分放心使用。因此,设施几乎没有必要自行开发量表。继续开发个别设施特有的跌倒风险评估可能会适得其反,因为不同设施的得分将无法进行比较。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验