Dyer Suzanne M, Kwok Wing S, Suen Jenni, Dawson Rik, Kneale Dylan, Sutcliffe Katy, Seppala Lotta J, Hill Keith D, Kerse Ngaire, Murray Geoffrey R, van der Velde Nathalie, Sherrington Catherine, Cameron Ian D
Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Aug 20;8:CD016064. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD016064.
RATIONALE: Falls in care facilities are common events, causing considerable morbidity and mortality for older people. This is an update of a review on interventions in care facilities and hospitals first published in 2010 and updated in 2012 and 2018 on interventions in care facilities and hospitals. This review has now been split into separate reviews for each setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions designed to reduce the incidence of falls in older people in care facilities. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registers to 10 May 2024 and used reference checking, citation searching, and contact with authors to identify eligible trials and records. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any intervention for preventing falls in older people (aged over 65 years) in care facilities with any comparator. We excluded trials conducted in places of residence that do not provide residential health-related care or rehabilitative services. We excluded trials where falls were recorded as adverse events of the intervention and those recruiting participants post-stroke or living with Parkinson's disease. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were rate of falls (number of falls per unit time) and number of fallers (risk of experiencing one or more falls). Important outcomes were risk of fracture, adverse events, and economic outcomes. RISK OF BIAS: We assessed risk of bias in the included studies against nine items (seven items from Cochrane's RoB 1 tool, plus method of ascertaining falls and baseline imbalance). SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two review authors independently performed study selection and data analysis. We calculated rate ratios (RaR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for rate of falls and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for outcomes of risk of falling (number of people falling) and risk of fracture. We adjusted for clustering if not undertaken by trial authors. We grouped the results of trials with comparable interventions and participant characteristics, and pooled results where appropriate using the generic inverse variance method in RevMan. We conducted subgroup analyses according to intervention type, cognitive status, and informed by a qualitative comparative analysis where more than 10 trials were pooled and heterogeneity was high. Where pooling was precluded by the nature of the data, we presented trial data in tables for illustrative purposes or reported these in the text, or both. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. GRADE ratings of risk of bias were based on sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high risk of bias. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 104 trials, 56 individually randomised and 48 cluster-randomised trials, with 68,964 participants. Thirty-three trials (27,492 participants) were added in this update. We assessed most of the included trials as at high risk of bias, often related to lack of blinding, which was rarely feasible for many intervention types. The certainty of evidence for the critical outcomes of falls ranged from high to very low. We have reported the critical outcomes for the main comparisons here. Regarding our important outcomes, adverse events were poorly reported, and the certainty of evidence was very low for all interventions; we have not reported these data here. The important outcomes of risk of fracture and cost-effectiveness are only reported here when the certainty of the evidence was stronger than very low. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multifactorial interventions. Overall, multifactorial interventions (i.e. two or more categories of intervention delivered based on individual risk profile) probably have little or no effect on the rate of falls (RaR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.12; I² = 89%; 12 trials; 4843 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of falling (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00; I² = 19%; 11 trials; 4557 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifactorial interventions may be cost-effective in reducing falls (GBP 20,889 per quality-adjusted life year, UK health and social care perspective; 1 trial; 1657 participants; low-certainty evidence). A subgroup analysis informed by qualitative comparative analysis indicated that multifactorial interventions delivered in a tailored manner according to resident individual circumstances (e.g. living with dementia) with facility staff engagement have greater effects (P < 0.001) than those not delivered in this manner, and probably result in a large reduction in rate of falls (RaR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69; I² = 0%; 7 trials; 3553 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and risk of falling (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92; I² = 0%; 5 trials; 2993 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). All trials included assessment of environmental and personal risk factors (including medication optimisation and assessment of need for assistive aids) and exercise interventions. Exercise. As a single intervention, exercise was compared with usual care in 28 trials. At the end of the intervention period, active exercise probably reduces the rate of falls (RaR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; I²= 84%; 14 trials; 2215 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and risk of falling (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; I² = 37%; 13 trials; 2408 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but may have little or no effect on risk of any fracture (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.78; 3 trials; 927 participants; low-certainty evidence). After a period of post-intervention follow-up, if active exercise is not sustained there is no effect on rate of falls (RaR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.32; I² = 64%; 7 trials; 1354 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably no effect on risk of falling (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.23; I² = 17%; 7 trials; 1443 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Active exercise may be cost-effective in reducing falls (AUD 18 per fall avoided, Australian health service perspective; 1 trial; 221 participants; low-certainty evidence). A subgroup analysis based on level of cognition indicated that active exercise may reduce the risk of falling in residents with cognitive impairment (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 4 trials; 451 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication optimisation. As a single intervention, medication optimisation interventions were diverse, but overall may make little or no difference to rate of falls (RaR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.13; I² = 86%; 13 trials; 4314 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably make little or no difference to risk of falling (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; I² = 0%; 12 trials; 6209 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the impact of medication review/deprescribing on falls outcomes (RaR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; I² = 86%; 12 trials; 4125 participants; very low-certainty evidence; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; I² = 0%; 9 trials; 1934 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Medication review/deprescribing as a single intervention may not be cost-effective (intervention had higher costs and falls, UK National Health Service and care home perspective; 1 trial; 826 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D supplementation (with or without calcium supplementation, alone or within a multivitamin) probably reduces the rate of falls (RaR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.86; I² = 72%; 5 trials; 4603 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but probably makes little or no difference to the risk of falling (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; I² = 12%; 6 trials; 5186 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The population in these trials had low vitamin D levels. Nutrition: dairy food supplementation. Increasing servings of dairy to residents through dietitian assistance with menu design to enhance protein and calcium through provision of dairy foods may decrease the risk of falling and fractures from falls (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00; RR fracture 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; 1 trial; 7195 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Multifactorial interventions implemented with facility staff engagement and tailored intervention delivery according to individual residents' circumstances probably reduce the rate of falls and risk of falling and may be cost-effective. Regarding single interventions, exercise probably reduces the rate of falls and the risk of falling, but if exercise is not sustained it has no ongoing effect on the rate of falls and probably no effect on the risk of falling. Active exercise may reduce the risk of falling in residents with cognitive impairment and may be cost-effective. Medication optimisation interventions were diverse overall and may make little or no difference to the rate of falls and probably little or no difference to the risk of falling. We are very uncertain of the effectiveness of medication review/deprescribing as a single intervention at reducing falls. Vitamin D supplementation probably reduces the rate of falls but probably makes little or no difference to the risk of falling. Addressing nutrition, increasing servings of dairy through dietitian assistance with menu design may decrease the risk of falling and risk of fractures. FUNDING: The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council provides salary support for authors through the Centre of Research Excellence for Prevention of Falls Injuries (Dyer, Suen, and Kwok) and Medical Research Future Fund (Dyer and Suen). Dylan Kneale is supported in part by ARC North Thames and the National Institute for Health Care Research ARC North Thames. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2023): Open Science Framework osf.io/y2nra Original review (2010): doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub2 Review update (2012): doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub3 Review update (2018): doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub4.
理由:护理机构中的跌倒事件很常见,会给老年人带来相当高的发病率和死亡率。这是对护理机构和医院干预措施综述的更新,该综述首次发表于2010年,并于2012年和2018年对护理机构和医院的干预措施进行了更新。现在,该综述已按每种环境分为单独的综述。 目的:评估旨在降低护理机构中老年人跌倒发生率的干预措施的益处和危害。 检索方法:我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL以及两个试验注册库,检索截至2024年5月10日的数据,并通过参考文献核对、引文检索以及与作者联系来识别符合条件的试验和记录。 纳入标准:我们纳入了针对护理机构中预防老年人(65岁以上)跌倒的任何干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT),并设置了任何对照。我们排除了在不提供与居住相关的健康护理或康复服务的居住场所进行的试验。我们排除了将跌倒记录为干预措施不良事件的试验,以及招募中风后参与者或帕金森病患者的试验。 结局指标:关键结局指标是跌倒发生率(单位时间内的跌倒次数)和跌倒者数量(经历一次或多次跌倒的风险)。重要结局指标是骨折风险、不良事件和经济结局。 偏倚风险:我们根据九个项目评估纳入研究的偏倚风险(Cochrane的RoB 1工具中的七个项目,加上确定跌倒的方法和基线不平衡)。 综合方法:两位综述作者独立进行研究选择和数据分析。我们计算了跌倒发生率的率比(RaR)及其95%置信区间(CI),以及跌倒风险(跌倒人数)和骨折风险结局的风险比(RR)及其95%CI。如果试验作者未进行聚类调整,我们会进行调整。我们将具有可比干预措施和参与者特征的试验结果进行分组,并在适当情况下使用RevMan中的通用逆方差方法汇总结果。我们根据干预类型、认知状态进行亚组分析,并在汇总超过10项试验且异质性较高时,通过定性比较分析提供信息。如果数据性质不允许汇总,我们会以表格形式展示试验数据以供说明,或在文本中报告这些数据,或两者兼而有之。我们使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。基于敏感性分析,排除高偏倚风险试验后得出的GRADE偏倚风险评级。 纳入研究:我们纳入了104项试验,其中56项为个体随机试验,48项为整群随机试验,共有68,964名参与者。本次更新增加了33项试验(27,492名参与者)。我们评估的大多数纳入试验存在高偏倚风险,这通常与缺乏盲法有关,对于许多干预类型来说,盲法很少可行。跌倒关键结局的证据确定性从高到非常低不等。我们在此报告主要比较的关键结局。关于我们的重要结局,不良事件报告不佳,所有干预措施的证据确定性都非常低;我们在此未报告这些数据。仅当证据确定性强于非常低时,才在此报告骨折风险和成本效益的重要结局。 结果综合:多因素干预。总体而言,多因素干预(即根据个体风险状况提供两类或更多类别的干预)可能对跌倒发生率几乎没有影响(RaR 0.87,95%CI 0.68至1.12;I² = 89%;12项试验;4843名参与者;中等确定性证据),但可能会降低跌倒风险(RR 0.91,95%CI 0.83至1.00;I² = 19%;11项试验;4557名参与者;中等确定性证据)。多因素干预在减少跌倒方面可能具有成本效益(从英国卫生和社会护理角度来看,每质量调整生命年20,889英镑;1项试验;1657名参与者;低确定性证据)。一项基于定性比较分析的亚组分析表明,根据居民个体情况(如患有痴呆症)量身定制并让设施工作人员参与的多因素干预,比未采用这种方式的干预效果更大(P < 0.001),可能会大幅降低跌倒发生率(RaR 0.61,95%CI 0.54至0.69;I² = 0%;7项试验;3553名参与者;中等确定性证据)和跌倒风险(RR 0.81,95%CI 0.71至0.92;I² = 0%;5项试验;2993名参与者;中等确定性证据)。所有试验都包括对环境和个人风险因素(包括药物优化和辅助器具需求评估)以及运动干预的评估。运动。作为单一干预措施,在28项试验中将运动与常规护理进行了比较。在干预期结束时,主动运动可能会降低跌倒发生率(RaR 0.68,95%CI 0.51至0.91;I² = 84%;14项试验;2215名参与者;中等确定性证据)和跌倒风险(RR 0.86,95%CI 0.75至1.00;I² = 37%;13项试验;2408名参与者;中等确定性证据),但可能对任何骨折风险几乎没有影响(RR 1.01,95%CI 0.58至1.78;3项试验;927名参与者;低确定性证据)。在干预期后的随访期,如果主动运动不能持续进行,则对跌倒发生率没有影响(RaR 1.02,95%CI 0.78至1.32;I² = 64%;7项试验;1354名参与者;高确定性证据)且可能对跌倒风险没有影响(RR 1.06,95%CI 0.92至1.23;I² = 17%;7项试验;1443名参与者;中等确定性证据)。主动运动在减少跌倒方面可能具有成本效益(从澳大利亚卫生服务角度来看,每避免一次跌倒18澳元;1项试验;221名参与者;低确定性证据)。基于认知水平的亚组分析表明,主动运动可能会降低认知障碍居民的跌倒风险(RR 0.72,95%CI 0.57至·91;4项试验;451名参与者;低确定性证据)。药物优化。作为单一干预措施,药物优化干预措施多种多样,但总体而言可能对跌倒发生率几乎没有影响(RaR 0.92,95%CI 0.75至1.13;I² = 86%;13项试验;4314名参与者;低确定性证据),并且可能对跌倒风险几乎没有影响(RR 0.96,95%CI 0.89至1.03;I² = 0%;12项试验;6209名参与者;中等确定性证据)。我们不确定药物审查/减药对跌倒结局的影响(RaR 0.94,95%CI 0.76至1.18;I² = 86%;12项试验;4125名参与者;非常低确定性证据;RR 0.90,95%CI 0.80至1.01;I² = 0%;9项试验;1934名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。作为单一干预措施,药物审查/减药可能不具有成本效益(从英国国家医疗服务体系和养老院角度来看,干预成本更高且跌倒情况更严重;1项试验;826名参与者;低确定性证据)。维生素D补充。维生素D补充(无论是否补充钙,单独或在复合维生素中)可能会降低跌倒发生率(RaR 0.63,95%CI 0.46至0.86;I² = 72%;5项试验;4603名参与者;中等确定性证据),但可能对跌倒风险几乎没有影响(RR 0.99,95%CI 0.90至1.08;I² = 12%;6项试验;5186名参与者;中等确定性证据)。这些试验中的人群维生素D水平较低。营养:乳制品补充。通过营养师协助设计菜单,增加居民的乳制品摄入量,以通过提供乳制品增强蛋白质和钙,可能会降低跌倒风险和跌倒导致的骨折风险(RR 0.89,95%CI 0.79至1.00;骨折RR 0.67,95%CI 0.48至0.93;1项试验;719,5名参与者;低确定性证据)。 作者结论:在设施工作人员参与下实施的多因素干预,并根据居民个体情况量身定制干预措施,可能会降低跌倒发生率和跌倒风险,并且可能具有成本效益。关于单一干预措施,运动可能会降低跌倒发生率和跌倒风险,但如果运动不能持续进行,则对跌倒发生率没有持续影响,并且可能对跌倒风险没有影响。主动运动可能会降低认知障碍居民的跌倒风险,并且可能具有成本效益。总体而言,药物优化干预措施多种多样,可能对跌倒发生率几乎没有影响,并且可能对跌倒风险几乎没有影响。我们非常不确定药物审查/减药作为单一干预措施在减少跌倒方面的有效性。维生素D补充可能会降低跌倒发生率,但可能对跌倒风险几乎没有影响。解决营养问题,通过营养师协助菜单设计增加乳制品摄入量,可能会降低跌倒风险和骨折风险。 资助:澳大利亚国家卫生与医学研究委员会通过预防跌倒伤害卓越研究中心(戴尔、孙和郭)以及医学研究未来基金(戴尔和孙)为作者提供薪资支持。迪伦·克尼尔部分得到了ARC北泰晤士和国家医疗保健研究ARC北泰晤士的支持。 注册信息:方案(2023年):开放科学框架osf.io/y2nra;原始综述(2010年):doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub2;综述更新(2012年):doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub3;综述更新(2018年):doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub4。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-8-20
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-9-7
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-7-23
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-12-13
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-10-3
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-7-28
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012-9-12