Goodwin Victoria A, Abbott Rebecca A, Whear Rebecca, Bethel Alison, Ukoumunne Obioha C, Thompson-Coon Jo, Stein Ken
PenCLAHRC, University of Exeter Medical School, Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane, Exeter EX2 4SF, UK.
BMC Geriatr. 2014 Feb 5;14:15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-14-15.
Limited attention has been paid in the literature to multiple component fall prevention interventions that comprise two or more fixed combinations of fall prevention interventions that are not individually tailored following a risk assessment. The study objective was to determine the effect of multiple component interventions on fall rates, number of fallers and fall-related injuries among older people and to establish effect sizes of particular intervention combinations.
Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane, AMED, UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio, Current Controlled Trials register and Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials register were systematically searched to August 2013 for randomised controlled trials targeting those aged 60 years and older with any medical condition or in any setting that compared multiple component interventions with no intervention, placebo or usual clinical care on the outcomes reported falls, number that fall or fall-related injuries. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Estimates of fall rate ratio and risk ratio were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. Data synthesis took place in 2013.
Eighteen papers reporting 17 trials were included (5034 participants). There was a reduction in the number of people that fell (pooled risk ratio = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.80 to 0.91) and the fall rate (pooled rate ratio = 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89) in favour of multiple component interventions when compared with controls. There was a small amount of statistical heterogeneity (I(2) =20%) across studies for fall rate and no heterogeneity across studies examining number of people that fell.
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials found evidence that multiple component interventions that are not tailored to individually assessed risk factors are effective at reducing both the number of people that fall and the fall rate. This approach should be considered as a service delivery option.
在文献中,对于包含两种或更多种预防跌倒干预措施固定组合的多成分预防跌倒干预措施关注较少,这些干预措施并非在风险评估后进行个体化定制。本研究的目的是确定多成分干预措施对老年人跌倒率、跌倒者数量和跌倒相关伤害的影响,并确定特定干预组合的效应大小。
系统检索了截至2013年8月的Medline、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsychInfo、Cochrane、AMED、英国临床研究网络研究组合、当前对照试验注册库以及澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册库,以查找针对60岁及以上、患有任何疾病或处于任何环境中的人群的随机对照试验,这些试验比较了多成分干预措施与无干预、安慰剂或常规临床护理在跌倒、跌倒人数或跌倒相关伤害等结局方面的差异。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具对纳入的研究进行评估。使用随机效应荟萃分析汇总各研究的跌倒率比值和风险比值估计值。数据综合于2013年进行。
纳入了18篇报告17项试验的论文(5034名参与者)。与对照组相比,多成分干预措施使跌倒人数减少(合并风险比值 = 0.85,95%置信区间(95%CI)0.80至0.91),跌倒率降低(合并率比值 = 0.80,95%CI 0.72至0.89)。各研究在跌倒率方面存在少量统计学异质性(I(2)=20%),而在研究跌倒人数方面各研究之间无异质性。
这项对随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析发现,有证据表明,未针对个体评估的风险因素进行定制的多成分干预措施在减少跌倒人数和跌倒率方面是有效的。这种方法应被视为一种服务提供选项。