PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1486536)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Prevention of Falls and Fall-Related Injuries in Community-Dwelling Seniors 
Executive Summary
In early August 2007, the Medical Advisory Secretariat began work on the Aging in the Community project, an evidence-based review of the literature surrounding healthy aging in the community. The Health System Strategy Division at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care subsequently asked the secretariat to provide an evidentiary platform for the ministry’s newly released Aging at Home Strategy.
After a broad literature review and consultation with experts, the secretariat identified 4 key areas that strongly predict an elderly person’s transition from independent community living to a long-term care home. Evidence-based analyses have been prepared for each of these 4 areas: falls and fall-related injuries, urinary incontinence, dementia, and social isolation. For the first area, falls and fall-related injuries, an economic model is described in a separate report.
Please visit the Medical Advisory Secretariat Web site, http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/mas_about.html, to review these titles within the Aging in the Community series.
Aging in the Community: Summary of Evidence-Based Analyses
Prevention of Falls and Fall-Related Injuries in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Behavioural Interventions for Urinary Incontinence in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Caregiver- and Patient-Directed Interventions for Dementia: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
The Falls/Fractures Economic Model in Ontario Residents Aged 65 Years and Over (FEMOR)
Objective
To identify interventions that may be effective in reducing the probability of an elderly person’s falling and/or sustaining a fall-related injury.
Background
Although estimates of fall rates vary widely based on the location, age, and living arrangements of the elderly population, it is estimated that each year approximately 30% of community-dwelling individuals aged 65 and older, and 50% of those aged 85 and older will fall. Of those individuals who fall, 12% to 42% will have a fall-related injury.
Several meta-analyses and cohort studies have identified falls and fall-related injuries as a strong predictor of admission to a long-term care (LTC) home. It has been shown that the risk of LTC home admission is over 5 times higher in seniors who experienced 2 or more falls without injury, and over 10 times higher in seniors who experienced a fall causing serious injury.
Falls result from the interaction of a variety of risk factors that can be both intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic factors are those that pertain to the physical, demographic, and health status of the individual, while extrinsic factors relate to the physical and socio-economic environment. Intrinsic risk factors can be further grouped into psychosocial/demographic risks, medical risks, risks associated with activity level and dependence, and medication risks. Commonly described extrinsic risks are tripping hazards, balance and slip hazards, and vision hazards.
Note: It is recognized that the terms “senior” and “elderly” carry a range of meanings for different audiences; this report generally uses the former, but the terms are treated here as essentially interchangeable.
Evidence-Based Analysis of Effectiveness
Research Question
Since many risk factors for falls are modifiable, what interventions (devices, systems, programs) exist that reduce the risk of falls and/or fall-related injuries for community-dwelling seniors?
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
English language;
published between January 2000 and September 2007;
population of community-dwelling seniors (majority aged 65+); and
randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental trials, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses.
Exclusion Criteria
special populations (e.g., stroke or osteoporosis; however, studies restricted only to women were included);
studies only reporting surrogate outcomes; or
studies whose outcome cannot be extracted for meta-analysis.
Outcomes of Interest
number of fallers, and
number of falls resulting in injury/fracture.
Search Strategy
A search was performed in OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), The Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) for studies published between January 2000 and September 2007. Furthermore, all studies included in a 2003 Cochrane review were considered for inclusion in this analysis. Abstracts were reviewed by a single author, and studies meeting the inclusion criteria outlined above were obtained. Studies were grouped based on intervention type, and data on population characteristics, fall outcomes, and study design were extracted. Reference lists were also checked for relevant studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed as high, moderate, low, or very low according to the GRADE methodology.
Summary of Findings
The following 11 interventions were identified in the literature search: exercise programs, vision assessment and referral, cataract surgery, environmental modifications, vitamin D supplementation, vitamin D plus calcium supplementation, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), medication withdrawal, gait-stabilizing devices, hip protectors, and multifactorial interventions.
Exercise programs were stratified into targeted programs where the exercise routine was tailored to the individuals’ needs, and untargeted programs that were identical among subjects. Furthermore, analyses were stratified by exercise program duration (<6 months and ≥6 months) and fall risk of study participants. Similarly, the analyses on the environmental modification studies were stratified by risk. Low-risk study participants had had no fall in the year prior to study entry, while high-risk participants had had at least one fall in the previous year.
A total of 17 studies investigating multifactorial interventions were identified in the literature search. Of these studies, 10 reported results for a high-risk population with previous falls, while 6 reported results for study participants representative of the general population. One study provided stratified results by fall risk, and therefore results from this study were included in each stratified analysis.
Summary of Meta-Analyses of Studies Investigating the Effectiveness of Interventions on the Risk of Falls in Community-Dwelling Seniors*
CI refers to confidence interval; RR, relative risk.
Hazard ratio is reported, because RR was not available.
Summary of Meta-Analyses of Studies Investigating the Effectiveness of Interventions on the Risk of Fall-Related Injuries in Community-Dwelling Seniors*
CI refers to confidence interval; RR, relative risk.
Odds ratio is reported, because RR was not available.
Conclusions
High-quality evidence indicates that long-term exercise programs in mobile seniors and environmental modifications in the homes of frail elderly persons will effectively reduce falls and possibly fall-related injuries in Ontario’s elderly population.
A combination of vitamin D and calcium supplementation in elderly women will help reduce the risk of falls by more than 40%.
The use of outdoor gait-stabilizing devices for mobile seniors during the winter in Ontario may reduce falls and fall-related injuries; however, evidence is limited and more research is required in this area.
While psychotropic medication withdrawal may be an effective method for reducing falls, evidence is limited and long-term compliance has been demonstrated to be difficult to achieve.
Multifactorial interventions in high-risk populations may be effective; however, the effect is only marginally significant, and the quality of evidence is low.
PMCID: PMC3377567  PMID: 23074507
2.  Falls prevention for the elderly 
Background
An ageing population, a growing prevalence of chronic diseases and limited financial resources for health care underpin the importance of prevention of disabling health disorders and care dependency in the elderly. A wide variety of measures is generally available for the prevention of falls and fall-related injuries. The spectrum ranges from diagnostic procedures for identifying individuals at risk of falling to complex interventions for the removal or reduction of identified risk factors. However, the clinical and economic effectiveness of the majority of recommended strategies for fall prevention is unclear. Against this background, the literature analyses in this HTA report aim to support decision-making for effective and efficient fall prevention.
Research questions
The pivotal research question addresses the effectiveness of single interventions and complex programmes for the prevention of falls and fall-related injuries. The target population are the elderly (> 60 years), living in their own housing or in long term care facilities. Further research questions refer to the cost-effectiveness of fall prevention measures, and their ethical, social and legal implications.
Methods
Systematic literature searches were performed in 31 databases covering the publication period from January 2003 to January 2010. While the effectiveness of interventions is solely assessed on the basis of randomised controlled trials (RCT), the assessment of the effectiveness of diagnostic procedures also considers prospective accuracy studies. In order to clarify social, ethical and legal aspects all studies deemed relevant with regard to content were taken into consideration, irrespective of their study design. Study selection and critical appraisal were conducted by two independent assessors. Due to clinical heterogeneity of the studies no meta-analyses were performed.
Results
Out of 12,000 references retrieved by literature searches, 184 meet the inclusion criteria. However, to a variable degree the validity of their results must be rated as compromised due to different biasing factors. In summary, it appears that the performance of tests or the application of parameters to identify individuals at risk of falling yields little or no clinically relevant information. Positive effects of exercise interventions may be expected in relatively young and healthy seniors, while studies indicate opposite effects in the fragile elderly. For this specific vulnerable population the modification of the housing environment shows protective effects. A low number of studies, low quality of studies or inconsistent results lead to the conclusion that the effectiveness of the following interventions has to be rated unclear yet: correction of vision disorders, modification of psychotropic medication, vitamin D supplementation, nutritional supplements, psychological interventions, education of nursing personnel, multiple and multifactorial programs as well as the application of hip protectors.
For the context of the German health care system the economic evaluations of fall prevention retrieved by the literature searches yield very few useful results. Cost-effectiveness calculations of fall prevention are mostly based on weak effectiveness data as well as on epidemiological and cost data from foreign health care systems.
Ethical analysis demonstrates ambivalent views of the target population concerning fall risk and the necessity of fall prevention. The willingness to take up preventive measures depends on a variety of personal factors, the quality of information, guidance and decision-making, the prevention program itself and social support.
The analysis of papers regarding legal issues shows three main challenges: the uncertainty of which standard of care has to be expected with regard to fall prevention, the necessity to consider the specific conditions of every single case when measures for fall prevention are applied, and the difficulty to balance the rights to autonomous decision making and physical integrity.
Discussion and conclusions
The assessment of clinical effectiveness of interventions for fall prevention is complicated by inherent methodological problems (esp. absence of blinding) and meaningful clinical heterogeneity of available studies. Therefore meta-analyses are not appropriate, and single study results are difficult to interpret. Both problems also impair the informative value of economic analyses. With this background it has to be stated that current recommendations regarding fall prevention in the elderly are not fully supported by scientific evidence. In particular, for the generation of new recommendations the dependency of probable effects on specific characteristics of the target populations or care settings should be taken into consideration. This also applies to the variable factors influencing the willingness of the target population to take up and pursue preventive measures.
In the planning of future studies equal weight should be placed on methodological rigour (freedom from biases) and transferability of results into routine care. Economic analyses require input of German data, either in form of a “piggy back study“ or in form of a modelling study that reflects the structures of the German health care system and is based on German epidemiological and cost data.
doi:10.3205/hta000099
PMCID: PMC3334922  PMID: 22536299
accidental falls; accidents, home/*; activities of daily living; aged/*; aged/*psychology; adjustment of the living environment; cataract surgery; correction of the visual acuity; customisation of the living environment; diagnosis; dietary supplements; dose-response relationship, drug; EBM; economic evaluation; elderly; environment design; evidence-based medicine; exercise program; exercise/physiology; eye test; eyesight; eyesight test; fall; fall prevention; fall prophylaxis; fall risk; fall risk factors; falling consequences; falling danger; fall-related injuries; fracture; freedom/*; freedom-depriving measures; geriatric nursing home; health technology assessment; hip fracture; hip fractures; hip protectors; homes for the aged; HTA; humans; interventions; medical adjustment; meta-analysis as topic; motor activity; motor activity/drug effects; motor skills; motor function; multi-factorial programs; multimodal programs; nursing homes; peer review; power of movement; prevention; primary prevention; private domesticity; prophylaxis; randomized controlled trial; randomized controlled trials as topic; RCT; review literature as topic; risk assessment; risk factors; risk reduction behavior; seniors; sight; stabilized; systematic review; technology assessment, biomedical; training program; visual acuity; Vitamin D/administration & dosage
3.  Efficacy of falls prevention interventions: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis 
Systematic Reviews  2013;2:38.
Background
Falls are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults. Although numerous trials of falls prevention interventions have been completed, there is extensive variation in their intervention components and clinical context, such that the key elements of an effective falls prevention program remain unclear to patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. Our objective is to identify the most effective interventions and combinations of interventions that prevent falls though a systematic review and meta-analysis, including a network meta-analysis.
Methods/Design
We will search for published (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ageline) and unpublished (e.g., trial registries, dissertations) randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in all languages examining interventions to prevent falls compared to usual care or other falls prevention interventions among adults aged ≥65 years from all settings (e.g., community, acute care, long-term care, and rehabilitation). The primary outcomes are number of injurious falls and number of hospitalizations due to falls. Secondary outcomes include falls rate, number of fallers, number of emergency room visits due to falls, number of physician visits due to falls, number of fractures, costs, and number of intervention-related harms (e.g., muscle soreness related to exercise).
We will calibrate our eligibility criteria amongst the team and two independent team members will screen the literature search results in duplicate. Conflicts will be resolved through team discussion. A similar process will be used for data abstraction and quality appraisal with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
Our results will be synthesized descriptively and a random effects meta-analysis will be conducted if the studies are deemed methodologically, clinically, and statistically (e.g., I2<60%) similar. If appropriate, a network meta-analysis will be conducted, which will allow the comparison of interventions that have not been compared in head-to-head RCTs, as well as the effectiveness of interventions.
Discussion
We will identify the most effective interventions and combinations of interventions that prevent falls in older people. Our results will be used to optimize falls prevention strategies, and our goal is to ultimately improve the health of seniors internationally.
Trial registration
PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013004151
doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-38
PMCID: PMC3683540  PMID: 23738619
Falls prevention; Systematic review; Network meta-analysis; Elderly
4.  Caregiver- and Patient-Directed Interventions for Dementia 
Executive Summary
In early August 2007, the Medical Advisory Secretariat began work on the Aging in the Community project, an evidence-based review of the literature surrounding healthy aging in the community. The Health System Strategy Division at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care subsequently asked the secretariat to provide an evidentiary platform for the ministry’s newly released Aging at Home Strategy.
After a broad literature review and consultation with experts, the secretariat identified 4 key areas that strongly predict an elderly person’s transition from independent community living to a long-term care home. Evidence-based analyses have been prepared for each of these 4 areas: falls and fall-related injuries, urinary incontinence, dementia, and social isolation. For the first area, falls and fall-related injuries, an economic model is described in a separate report.
Please visit the Medical Advisory Secretariat Web site, http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/mas_about.html, to review these titles within the Aging in the Community series.
Aging in the Community: Summary of Evidence-Based Analyses
Prevention of Falls and Fall-Related Injuries in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Behavioural Interventions for Urinary Incontinence in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Caregiver- and Patient-Directed Interventions for Dementia: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
The Falls/Fractures Economic Model in Ontario Residents Aged 65 Years and Over (FEMOR)
This report features the evidence-based analysis on caregiver- and patient-directed interventions for dementia and is broken down into 4 sections:
Introduction
Caregiver-Directed Interventions for Dementia
Patient-Directed Interventions for Dementia
Economic Analysis of Caregiver- and Patient-Directed Interventions for Dementia
Caregiver-Directed Interventions for Dementia
Objective
To identify interventions that may be effective in supporting the well-being of unpaid caregivers of seniors with dementia living in the community.
Clinical Need: Target Population and Condition
Dementia is a progressive and largely irreversible syndrome that is characterized by a loss of cognitive function severe enough to impact social or occupational functioning. The components of cognitive function affected include memory and learning, attention, concentration and orientation, problem-solving, calculation, language, and geographic orientation. Dementia was identified as one of the key predictors in a senior’s transition from independent community living to admission to a long-term care (LTC) home, in that approximately 90% of individuals diagnosed with dementia will be institutionalized before death. In addition, cognitive decline linked to dementia is one of the most commonly cited reasons for institutionalization.
Prevalence estimates of dementia in the Ontario population have largely been extrapolated from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging conducted in 1991. Based on these estimates, it is projected that there will be approximately 165,000 dementia cases in Ontario in the year 2008, and by 2010 the number of cases will increase by nearly 17% over 2005 levels. By 2020 the number of cases is expected to increase by nearly 55%, due to a rise in the number of people in the age categories with the highest prevalence (85+). With the increase in the aging population, dementia will continue to have a significant economic impact on the Canadian health care system. In 1991, the total costs associated with dementia in Canada were $3.9 billion (Cdn) with $2.18 billion coming from LTC.
Caregivers play a crucial role in the management of individuals with dementia because of the high level of dependency and morbidity associated with the condition. It has been documented that a greater demand is faced by dementia caregivers compared with caregivers of persons with other chronic diseases. The increased burden of caregiving contributes to a host of chronic health problems seen among many informal caregivers of persons with dementia. Much of this burden results from managing the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), which have been established as a predictor of institutionalization for elderly patients with dementia.
It is recognized that for some patients with dementia, an LTC facility can provide the most appropriate care; however, many patients move into LTC unnecessarily. For individuals with dementia to remain in the community longer, caregivers require many types of formal and informal support services to alleviate the stress of caregiving. These include both respite care and psychosocial interventions. Psychosocial interventions encompass a broad range of interventions such as psychoeducational interventions, counseling, supportive therapy, and behavioural interventions.
Assuming that 50% of persons with dementia live in the community, a conservative estimate of the number of informal caregivers in Ontario is 82,500. Accounting for the fact that 29% of people with dementia live alone, this leaves a remaining estimate of 58,575 Ontarians providing care for a person with dementia with whom they reside.
Description of Interventions
The 2 main categories of caregiver-directed interventions examined in this review are respite care and psychosocial interventions. Respite care is defined as a break or relief for the caregiver. In most cases, respite is provided in the home, through day programs, or at institutions (usually 30 days or less). Depending on a caregiver’s needs, respite services will vary in delivery and duration. Respite care is carried out by a variety of individuals, including paid staff, volunteers, family, or friends.
Psychosocial interventions encompass a broad range of interventions and have been classified in various ways in the literature. This review will examine educational, behavioural, dementia-specific, supportive, and coping interventions. The analysis focuses on behavioural interventions, that is, those designed to help the caregiver manage BPSD. As described earlier, BPSD are one of the most challenging aspects of caring for a senior with dementia, causing an increase in caregiver burden. The analysis also examines multicomponent interventions, which include at least 2 of the above-mentioned interventions.
Methods of Evidence-Based Analysis
A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of interventions for caregivers of dementia patients.
Questions
Section 2.1
Are respite care services effective in supporting the well-being of unpaid caregivers of seniors with dementia in the community?
Do respite care services impact on rates of institutionalization of these seniors?
Section 2.2
Which psychosocial interventions are effective in supporting the well-being of unpaid caregivers of seniors with dementia in the community?
Which interventions reduce the risk for institutionalization of seniors with dementia?
Outcomes of Interest
any quantitative measure of caregiver psychological health, including caregiver burden, depression, quality of life, well-being, strain, mastery (taking control of one’s situation), reactivity to behaviour problems, etc.;
rate of institutionalization; and
cost-effectiveness.
Assessment of Quality of Evidence
The quality of the evidence was assessed as High, Moderate, Low, or Very low according to the GRADE methodology and GRADE Working Group. As per GRADE the following definitions apply:
Summary of Findings
Conclusions in Table 1 are drawn from Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the report.
Summary of Conclusions on Caregiver-Directed Interventions
There is limited evidence from RCTs that respite care is effective in improving outcomes for those caring for seniors with dementia.
There is considerable qualitative evidence of the perceived benefits of respite care.
Respite care is known as one of the key formal support services for alleviating caregiver burden in those caring for dementia patients.
Respite care services need to be tailored to individual caregiver needs as there are vast differences among caregivers and patients with dementia (severity, type of dementia, amount of informal/formal support available, housing situation, etc.)
There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that individual behavioural interventions (≥ 6 sessions), directed towards the caregiver (or combined with the patient) are effective in improving psychological health in dementia caregivers.
There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that multicomponent interventions improve caregiver psychosocial health and may affect rates of institutionalization of dementia patients.
RCT indicates randomized controlled trial.
Patient-Directed Interventions for Dementia
Objective
The section on patient-directed interventions for dementia is broken down into 4 subsections with the following questions:
3.1 Physical Exercise for Seniors with Dementia – Secondary Prevention
What is the effectiveness of physical exercise for the improvement or maintenance of basic activities of daily living (ADLs), such as eating, bathing, toileting, and functional ability, in seniors with mild to moderate dementia?
3.2 Nonpharmacologic and Nonexercise Interventions to Improve Cognitive Functioning in Seniors With Dementia – Secondary Prevention
What is the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic interventions to improve cognitive functioning in seniors with mild to moderate dementia?
3.3 Physical Exercise for Delaying the Onset of Dementia – Primary Prevention
Can exercise decrease the risk of subsequent cognitive decline/dementia?
3.4 Cognitive Interventions for Delaying the Onset of Dementia – Primary Prevention
Does cognitive training decrease the risk of cognitive impairment, deterioration in the performance of basic ADLs or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs),1 or incidence of dementia in seniors with good cognitive and physical functioning?
Clinical Need: Target Population and Condition
Secondary Prevention2
Exercise
Physical deterioration is linked to dementia. This is thought to be due to reduced muscle mass leading to decreased activity levels and muscle atrophy, increasing the potential for unsafe mobility while performing basic ADLs such as eating, bathing, toileting, and functional ability.
Improved physical conditioning for seniors with dementia may extend their independent mobility and maintain performance of ADL.
Nonpharmacologic and Nonexercise Interventions
Cognitive impairments, including memory problems, are a defining feature of dementia. These impairments can lead to anxiety, depression, and withdrawal from activities. The impact of these cognitive problems on daily activities increases pressure on caregivers.
Cognitive interventions aim to improve these impairments in people with mild to moderate dementia.
Primary Prevention3
Exercise
Various vascular risk factors have been found to contribute to the development of dementia (e.g., hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, overweight).
Physical exercise is important in promoting overall and vascular health. However, it is unclear whether physical exercise can decrease the risk of cognitive decline/dementia.
Nonpharmacologic and Nonexercise Interventions
Having more years of education (i.e., a higher cognitive reserve) is associated with a lower prevalence of dementia in crossectional population-based studies and a lower incidence of dementia in cohorts followed longitudinally. However, it is unclear whether cognitive training can increase cognitive reserve or decrease the risk of cognitive impairment, prevent or delay deterioration in the performance of ADLs or IADLs or reduce the incidence of dementia.
Description of Interventions
Physical exercise and nonpharmacologic/nonexercise interventions (e.g., cognitive training) for the primary and secondary prevention of dementia are assessed in this review.
Evidence-Based Analysis Methods
A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify systematic reviews and RCTs that examined the effectiveness, safety and cost effectiveness of exercise and cognitive interventions for the primary and secondary prevention of dementia.
Questions
Section 3.1: What is the effectiveness of physical exercise for the improvement or maintenance of ADLs in seniors with mild to moderate dementia?
Section 3.2: What is the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic/nonexercise interventions to improve cognitive functioning in seniors with mild to moderate dementia?
Section 3.3: Can exercise decrease the risk of subsequent cognitive decline/dementia?
Section 3.4: Does cognitive training decrease the risk of cognitive impairment, prevent or delay deterioration in the performance of ADLs or IADLs, or reduce the incidence of dementia in seniors with good cognitive and physical functioning?
Assessment of Quality of Evidence
The quality of the evidence was assessed as High, Moderate, Low, or Very low according to the GRADE methodology. As per GRADE the following definitions apply:
Summary of Findings
Table 2 summarizes the conclusions from Sections 3.1 through 3.4.
Summary of Conclusions on Patient-Directed Interventions*
Previous systematic review indicated that “cognitive training” is not effective in patients with dementia.
A recent RCT suggests that CST (up to 7 weeks) is effective for improving cognitive function and quality of life in patients with dementia.
Regular leisure time physical activity in midlife is associated with a reduced risk of dementia in later life (mean follow-up 21 years).
Regular physical activity in seniors is associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline (mean follow-up 2 years).
Regular physical activity in seniors is associated with a reduced risk of dementia (mean follow-up 6–7 years).
Evidence that cognitive training for specific functions (memory, reasoning, and speed of processing) produces improvements in these specific domains.
Limited inconclusive evidence that cognitive training can offset deterioration in the performance of self-reported IADL scores and performance assessments.
1° indicates primary; 2°, secondary; CST, cognitive stimulation therapy; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Benefit/Risk Analysis
As per the GRADE Working Group, the overall recommendations consider 4 main factors:
the trade-offs, taking into account the estimated size of the effect for the main outcome, the confidence limits around those estimates, and the relative value placed on the outcome;
the quality of the evidence;
translation of the evidence into practice in a specific setting, taking into consideration important factors that could be expected to modify the size of the expected effects such as proximity to a hospital or availability of necessary expertise; and
uncertainty about the baseline risk for the population of interest.
The GRADE Working Group also recommends that incremental costs of health care alternatives should be considered explicitly alongside the expected health benefits and harms. Recommendations rely on judgments about the value of the incremental health benefits in relation to the incremental costs. The last column in Table 3 reflects the overall trade-off between benefits and harms (adverse events) and incorporates any risk/uncertainty (cost-effectiveness).
Overall Summary Statement of the Benefit and Risk for Patient-Directed Interventions*
Economic Analysis
Budget Impact Analysis of Effective Interventions for Dementia
Caregiver-directed behavioural techniques and patient-directed exercise programs were found to be effective when assessing mild to moderate dementia outcomes in seniors living in the community. Therefore, an annual budget impact was calculated based on eligible seniors in the community with mild and moderate dementia and their respective caregivers who were willing to participate in interventional home sessions. Table 4 describes the annual budget impact for these interventions.
Annual Budget Impact (2008 Canadian Dollars)
Assumed 7% prevalence of dementia aged 65+ in Ontario.
Assumed 8 weekly sessions plus 4 monthly phone calls.
Assumed 12 weekly sessions plus biweekly sessions thereafter (total of 20).
Assumed 2 sessions per week for first 5 weeks. Assumed 90% of seniors in the community with dementia have mild to moderate disease. Assumed 4.5% of seniors 65+ are in long-term care, and the remainder are in the community. Assumed a rate of participation of 60% for both patients and caregivers and of 41% for patient-directed exercise. Assumed 100% compliance since intervention administered at the home. Cost for trained staff from Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care data source. Assumed cost of personal support worker to be equivalent to in-home support. Cost for recreation therapist from Alberta government Website.
Note: This budget impact analysis was calculated for the first year after introducing the interventions from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care perspective using prevalence data only. Prevalence estimates are for seniors in the community with mild to moderate dementia and their respective caregivers who are willing to participate in an interventional session administered at the home setting. Incidence and mortality rates were not factored in. Current expenditures in the province are unknown and therefore were not included in the analysis. Numbers may change based on population trends, rate of intervention uptake, trends in current programs in place in the province, and assumptions on costs. The number of patients was based on patients likely to access these interventions in Ontario based on assumptions stated below from the literature. An expert panel confirmed resource consumption.
PMCID: PMC3377513  PMID: 23074509
5.  Minimally invasive surgical procedures for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation 
Introduction
In up to 30% of patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery for herniated or protruded discs outcomes are judged unfavourable. Over the last decades this problem has stimulated the development of a number of minimally-invasive operative procedures. The aim is to relieve pressure from compromised nerve roots by mechanically removing, dissolving or evaporating disc material while leaving bony structures and surrounding tissues as intact as possible. In Germany, there is hardly any utilisation data for these new procedures – data files from the statutory health insurances demonstrate that about 5% of all lumbar disc surgeries are performed using minimally-invasive techniques. Their real proportion is thought to be much higher because many procedures are offered by private hospitals and surgeries and are paid by private health insurers or patients themselves. So far no comprehensive assessment comparing efficacy, safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimally-invasive lumbar disc surgery to standard procedures (microdiscectomy, open discectomy) which could serve as a basis for coverage decisions, has been published in Germany.
Objective
Against this background the aim of the following assessment is:
Based on published scientific literature assess safety, efficacy and effectiveness of minimally-invasive lumbar disc surgery compared to standard procedures. To identify and critically appraise studies comparing costs and cost-effectiveness of minimally-invasive procedures to that of standard procedures. If necessary identify research and evaluation needs and point out regulative needs within the German health care system. The assessment focusses on procedures that are used in elective lumbar disc surgery as alternative treatment options to microdiscectomy or open discectomy. Chemonucleolysis, percutaneous manual discectomy, automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy, laserdiscectomy and endoscopic procedures accessing the disc by a posterolateral or posterior approach are included.
Methods
In order to assess safety, efficacy and effectiveness of minimally-invasive procedures as well as their economic implications systematic reviews of the literature are performed. A comprehensive search strategy is composed to search 23 electronic databases, among them MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Methodological quality of systematic reviews, HTA reports and primary research is assessed using checklists of the German Scientific Working Group for Health Technology Assessment. Quality and transparency of cost analyses are documented using the quality and transparency catalogues of the working group. Study results are summarised in a qualitative manner. Due to the limited number and the low methodological quality of the studies it is not possible to conduct metaanalyses. In addition to the results of controlled trials results of recent case series are introduced and discussed.
Results
The evidence-base to assess safety, efficacy and effectiveness of minimally-invasive lumbar disc surgery procedures is rather limited:
Percutaneous manual discectomy: Six case series (four after 1998)Automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy: Two RCT (one discontinued), twelve case series (one after 1998)Chemonucleolysis: Five RCT, five non-randomised controlled trials, eleven case seriesPercutaneous laserdiscectomy: One non-randomised controlled trial, 13 case series (eight after 1998)Endoscopic procedures: Three RCT, 21 case series (17 after 1998)
There are two economic analyses each retrieved for chemonucleolysis and automated percutaneous discectomy as well as one cost-minimisation analysis comparing costs of an endoscopic procedure to costs for open discectomy.
Among all minimally-invasive procedures chemonucleolysis is the only of which efficacy may be judged on the basis of results from high quality randomised controlled trials (RCT). Study results suggest that the procedure maybe (cost)effectively used as an intermediate therapeutical option between conservative and operative management of small lumbar disc herniations or protrusions causing sciatica. Two RCT comparing transforaminal endoscopic procedures with microdiscectomy in patients with sciatica and small non-sequestered disc herniations show comparable short and medium term overall success rates. Concerning speed of recovery and return to work a trend towards more favourable results for the endoscopic procedures is noted. It is doubtful though, whether these results from the eleven and five years old studies are still valid for the more advanced procedures used today. The only RCT comparing the results of automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy to those of microdiscectomy showed clearly superior results of microdiscectomy. Furthermore, success rates of automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy reported in the RCT (29%) differ extremely from success rates reported in case series (between 56% and 92%).
The literature search retrieves no controlled trials to assess efficacy and/or effectiveness of laser-discectomy, percutaneous manual discectomy or endoscopic procedures using a posterior approach in comparison to the standard procedures. Results from recent case series permit no assessment of efficacy, especially not in comparison to standard procedures. Due to highly selected patients, modi-fications of operative procedures, highly specialised surgical units and poorly standardised outcome assessment results of case series are highly variable, their generalisability is low.
The results of the five economical analyses are, due to conceptual and methodological problems, of no value for decision-making in the context of the German health care system.
Discussion
Aside from low methodological study quality three conceptual problems complicate the interpretation of results.
Continuous further development of technologies leads to a diversity of procedures in use which prohibits generalisation of study results. However, diversity is noted not only for minimally-invasive procedures but also for the standard techniques against which the new developments are to be compared. The second problem refers to the heterogeneity of study populations. For most studies one common inclusion criterion was "persisting sciatica after a course of conservative treatment of variable duration". Differences among study populations are noted concerning results of imaging studies. Even within every group of minimally-invasive procedure, studies define their own in- and exclusion criteria which differ concerning degree of dislocation and sequestration of disc material. There is the non-standardised assessment of outcomes which are performed postoperatively after variable periods of time. Most studies report results in a dichotomous way as success or failure while the classification of a result is performed using a variety of different assessment instruments or procedures. Very often the global subjective judgement of results by patients or surgeons is reported. There are no scientific discussions whether these judgements are generalisable or comparable, especially among studies that are conducted under differing socio-cultural conditions. Taking into account the weak evidence-base for efficacy and effectiveness of minimally-invasive procedures it is not surprising that so far there are no dependable economic analyses.
Conclusions
Conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the present assessment refer in detail to the specified minimally-invasive procedures of lumbar disc surgery but they may also be considered exemplary for other fields where optimisation of results is attempted by technological development and widening of indications (e.g. total hip replacement).
Compared to standard technologies (open discectomy, microdiscectomy) and with the exception of chemonucleolysis, the developmental status of all other minimally-invasive procedures assessed must be termed experimental. To date there is no dependable evidence-base to recommend their use in routine clinical practice. To create such a dependable evidence-base further research in two directions is needed: a) The studies need to include adequate patient populations, use realistic controls (e.g. standard operative procedures or continued conservative care) and use standardised measurements of meaningful outcomes after adequate periods of time. b) Studies that are able to report effectiveness of the procedures under everyday practice conditions and furthermore have the potential to detect rare adverse effects are needed. In Sweden this type of data is yielded by national quality registries. On the one hand their data are used for quality improvement measures and on the other hand they allow comprehensive scientific evaluations. Since the year of 2000 a continuous rise in utilisation of minimally-invasive lumbar disc surgery is observed among statutory health insurers. Examples from other areas of innovative surgical technologies (e.g. robot assisted total hip replacement) indicate that the rise will probably continue - especially because there are no legal barriers to hinder introduction of innovative treatments into routine hospital care. Upon request by payers or providers the "Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss" may assess a treatments benefit, its necessity and cost-effectiveness as a prerequisite for coverage by the statutory health insurance. In the case of minimally-invasive disc surgery it would be advisable to examine the legal framework for covering procedures only if they are provided under evaluation conditions. While in Germany coverage under evaluation conditions is established practice in ambulatory health care only (“Modellvorhaben") examples from other European countries (Great Britain, Switzerland) demonstrate that it is also feasible for hospital based interventions. In order to assure patient protection and at the same time not hinder the further development of new and promising technologies provision under evaluation conditions could also be realised in the private health care market - although in this sector coverage is not by law linked to benefit, necessity and cost-effectiveness of an intervention.
PMCID: PMC3011322  PMID: 21289928
6.  Meta-analyses of Adverse Effects Data Derived from Randomised Controlled Trials as Compared to Observational Studies: Methodological Overview 
PLoS Medicine  2011;8(5):e1001026.
Su Golder and colleagues carry out an overview of meta-analyses to assess whether estimates of the risk of harm outcomes differ between randomized trials and observational studies. They find that, on average, there is no difference in the estimates of risk between overviews of observational studies and overviews of randomized trials.
Background
There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies.
Methods and Findings
Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance.
Conclusions
Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
Whenever patients consult a doctor, they expect the treatments they receive to be effective and to have minimal adverse effects (side effects). To ensure that this is the case, all treatments now undergo exhaustive clinical research—carefully designed investigations that test new treatments and therapies in people. Clinical investigations fall into two main groups—randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational, or non-randomized, studies. In RCTs, groups of patients with a specific disease or condition are randomly assigned to receive the new treatment or a control treatment, and the outcomes (for example, improvements in health and the occurrence of specific adverse effects) of the two groups of patients are compared. Because the patients are randomly chosen, differences in outcomes between the two groups are likely to be treatment-related. In observational studies, patients who are receiving a specific treatment are enrolled and outcomes in this group are compared to those in a similar group of untreated patients. Because the patient groups are not randomly chosen, differences in outcomes between cases and controls may be the result of a hidden shared characteristic among the cases rather than treatment-related (so-called confounding variables).
Why Was This Study Done?
Although data from individual trials and studies are valuable, much more information about a potential new treatment can be obtained by systematically reviewing all the evidence and then doing a meta-analysis (so-called evidence-based medicine). A systematic review uses predefined criteria to identify all the research on a treatment; meta-analysis is a statistical method for combining the results of several studies to yield “pooled estimates” of the treatment effect (the efficacy of a treatment) and the risk of harm. Treatment effect estimates can differ between RCTs and observational studies, but what about adverse effect estimates? Can different study designs provide a consistent picture of the risk of harm, or are the results from different study designs so disparate that it would be meaningless to combine them in a single review? In this methodological overview, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analyses, the researchers assess the level of agreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs with estimates derived from meta-analysis of observational studies.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers searched literature databases and reference lists, consulted experts, and hand-searched various other sources for studies in which the pooled estimate of an adverse effect from RCTs could be directly compared to the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect from observational studies. They identified 19 studies that together covered 58 separate adverse effects. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm obtained from meta-analyses of RCTs and observational studies had overlapping 95% confidence intervals. That is, in statistical terms, the estimates of harm were similar. Moreover, in nearly two-thirds of cases, there was agreement between RCTs and observational studies about whether a treatment caused a significant increase in adverse effects, a significant decrease, or no significant change (a significant change is one unlikely to have occurred by chance). Finally, the researchers used meta-analysis to calculate that the pooled ratio of the odds ratios (a statistical measurement of risk) of RCTs compared to observational studies was 1.03. This figure suggests that there was no consistent difference between risk estimates obtained from meta-analysis of RCT data and those obtained from meta-analysis of observational study data.
What Do These Findings Mean?
The findings of this methodological overview suggest that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of an intervention's adverse effects obtained from meta-analyses of RCTs and from meta-analyses of observational studies. Although limited by some aspects of its design, this overview has several important implications for the conduct of systematic reviews of adverse effects. In particular, it suggests that, rather than limiting systematic reviews to certain study designs, it might be better to evaluate a broad range of studies. In this way, it might be possible to build a more complete, more generalizable picture of potential harms associated with an intervention, without any loss of validity, than by evaluating a single type of study. Such a picture, in combination with estimates of treatment effects also obtained from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, would help clinicians decide the best treatment for their patients.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001026.
The US National Institutes of Health provide information on clinical research; the UK National Health Service Choices Web site also has a page on clinical trials and medical research
The Cochrane Collaboration produces and disseminates systematic reviews of health-care interventions
Medline Plus provides links to further information about clinical trials (in English and Spanish)
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001026
PMCID: PMC3086872  PMID: 21559325
7.  Behavioural Interventions for Urinary Incontinence in Community-Dwelling Seniors 
Executive Summary
In early August 2007, the Medical Advisory Secretariat began work on the Aging in the Community project, an evidence-based review of the literature surrounding healthy aging in the community. The Health System Strategy Division at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care subsequently asked the secretariat to provide an evidentiary platform for the ministry’s newly released Aging at Home Strategy.
After a broad literature review and consultation with experts, the secretariat identified 4 key areas that strongly predict an elderly person’s transition from independent community living to a long-term care home. Evidence-based analyses have been prepared for each of these 4 areas: falls and fall-related injuries, urinary incontinence, dementia, and social isolation. For the first area, falls and fall-related injuries, an economic model is described in a separate report.
Please visit the Medical Advisory Secretariat Web site, http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/mas_about.html, to review these titles within the Aging in the Community series.
Aging in the Community: Summary of Evidence-Based Analyses
Prevention of Falls and Fall-Related Injuries in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Behavioural Interventions for Urinary Incontinence in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Caregiver- and Patient-Directed Interventions for Dementia: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
The Falls/Fractures Economic Model in Ontario Residents Aged 65 Years and Over (FEMOR)
Objective
To assess the effectiveness of behavioural interventions for the treatment and management of urinary incontinence (UI) in community-dwelling seniors.
Clinical Need: Target Population and Condition
Urinary incontinence defined as “the complaint of any involuntary leakage of urine” was identified as 1 of the key predictors in a senior’s transition from independent community living to admission to a long-term care (LTC) home. Urinary incontinence is a health problem that affects a substantial proportion of Ontario’s community-dwelling seniors (and indirectly affects caregivers), impacting their health, functioning, well-being and quality of life. Based on Canadian studies, prevalence estimates range from 9% to 30% for senior men and nearly double from 19% to 55% for senior women. The direct and indirect costs associated with UI are substantial. It is estimated that the total annual costs in Canada are $1.5 billion (Cdn), and that each year a senior living at home will spend $1,000 to $1,500 on incontinence supplies.
Interventions to treat and manage UI can be classified into broad categories which include lifestyle modification, behavioural techniques, medications, devices (e.g., continence pessaries), surgical interventions and adjunctive measures (e.g., absorbent products).
The focus of this review is behavioural interventions, since they are commonly the first line of treatment considered in seniors given that they are the least invasive options with no reported side effects, do not limit future treatment options, and can be applied in combination with other therapies. In addition, many seniors would not be ideal candidates for other types of interventions involving more risk, such as surgical measures.
Note: It is recognized that the terms “senior” and “elderly” carry a range of meanings for different audiences; this report generally uses the former, but the terms are treated here as essentially interchangeable.
Description of Technology/Therapy
Behavioural interventions can be divided into 2 categories according to the target population: caregiver-dependent techniques and patient-directed techniques. Caregiver-dependent techniques (also known as toileting assistance) are targeted at medically complex, frail individuals living at home with the assistance of a caregiver, who tends to be a family member. These seniors may also have cognitive deficits and/or motor deficits. A health care professional trains the senior’s caregiver to deliver an intervention such as prompted voiding, habit retraining, or timed voiding. The health care professional who trains the caregiver is commonly a nurse or a nurse with advanced training in the management of UI, such as a nurse continence advisor (NCA) or a clinical nurse specialist (CNS).
The second category of behavioural interventions consists of patient-directed techniques targeted towards mobile, motivated seniors. Seniors in this population are cognitively able, free from any major physical deficits, and motivated to regain and/or improve their continence. A nurse or a nurse with advanced training in UI management, such as an NCA or CNS, delivers the patient-directed techniques. These are often provided as multicomponent interventions including a combination of bladder training techniques, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), education on bladder control strategies, and self-monitoring. Pelvic floor muscle training, defined as a program of repeated pelvic floor muscle contractions taught and supervised by a health care professional, may be employed as part of a multicomponent intervention or in isolation.
Education is a large component of both caregiver-dependent and patient-directed behavioural interventions, and patient and/or caregiver involvement as well as continued practice strongly affect the success of treatment. Incontinence products, which include a large variety of pads and devices for effective containment of urine, may be used in conjunction with behavioural techniques at any point in the patient’s management.
Evidence-Based Analysis Methods
A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of caregiver-dependent and patient-directed behavioural interventions for the treatment of UI in community-dwelling seniors (see Appendix 1).
Research Questions
Are caregiver-dependent behavioural interventions effective in improving UI in medically complex, frail community-dwelling seniors with/without cognitive deficits and/or motor deficits?
Are patient-directed behavioural interventions effective in improving UI in mobile, motivated community-dwelling seniors?
Are behavioural interventions delivered by NCAs or CNSs in a clinic setting effective in improving incontinence outcomes in community-dwelling seniors?
Assessment of Quality of Evidence
The quality of the evidence was assessed as high, moderate, low, or very low according to the GRADE methodology and GRADE Working Group. As per GRADE the following definitions apply:
Summary of Findings
Executive Summary Table 1 summarizes the results of the analysis.
The available evidence was limited by considerable variation in study populations and in the type and severity of UI for studies examining both caregiver-directed and patient-directed interventions. The UI literature frequently is limited to reporting subjective outcome measures such as patient observations and symptoms. The primary outcome of interest, admission to a LTC home, was not reported in the UI literature. The number of eligible studies was low, and there were limited data on long-term follow-up.
Summary of Evidence on Behavioural Interventions for the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence in Community-Dwelling Seniors
Prompted voiding
Habit retraining
Timed voiding
Bladder training
PFMT (with or without biofeedback)
Bladder control strategies
Education
Self-monitoring
CI refers to confidence interval; CNS, clinical nurse specialist; NCA, nurse continence advisor; PFMT, pelvic floor muscle training; RCT, randomized controlled trial; WMD, weighted mean difference; UI, urinary incontinence.
Economic Analysis
A budget impact analysis was conducted to forecast costs for caregiver-dependent and patient-directed multicomponent behavioural techniques delivered by NCAs, and PFMT alone delivered by physiotherapists. All costs are reported in 2008 Canadian dollars. Based on epidemiological data, published medical literature and clinical expert opinion, the annual cost of caregiver-dependent behavioural techniques was estimated to be $9.2 M, while the annual costs of patient-directed behavioural techniques delivered by either an NCA or physiotherapist were estimated to be $25.5 M and $36.1 M, respectively. Estimates will vary if the underlying assumptions are changed.
Currently, the province of Ontario absorbs the cost of NCAs (available through the 42 Community Care Access Centres across the province) in the home setting. The 2007 Incontinence Care in the Community Report estimated that the total cost being absorbed by the public system of providing continence care in the home is $19.5 M in Ontario. This cost estimate included resources such as personnel, communication with physicians, record keeping and product costs. Clinic costs were not included in this estimation because currently these come out of the global budget of the respective hospital and very few continence clinics actually exist in the province. The budget impact analysis factored in a cost for the clinic setting, assuming that the public system would absorb the cost with this new model of community care.
Considerations for Ontario Health System
An expert panel on aging in the community met on 3 occasions from January to May 2008, and in part, discussed treatment of UI in seniors in Ontario with a focus on caregiver-dependent and patient-directed behavioural interventions. In particular, the panel discussed how treatment for UI is made available to seniors in Ontario and who provides the service. Some of the major themes arising from the discussions included:
Services/interventions that currently exist in Ontario offering behavioural interventions to treat UI are not consistent. There is a lack of consistency in how seniors access services for treatment of UI, who manages patients and what treatment patients receive.
Help-seeking behaviours are important to consider when designing optimal service delivery methods.
There is considerable social stigma associated with UI and therefore there is a need for public education and an awareness campaign.
The cost of incontinent supplies and the availability of NCAs were highlighted.
Conclusions
There is moderate-quality evidence that the following interventions are effective in improving UI in mobile motivated seniors:
Multicomponent behavioural interventions including a combination of bladder training techniques, PFMT (with or without biofeedback), education on bladder control strategies and self-monitoring techniques.
Pelvic floor muscle training alone.
There is moderate quality evidence that when behavioural interventions are led by NCAs or CNSs in a clinic setting, they are effective in improving UI in seniors.
There is limited low-quality evidence that prompted voiding may be effective in medically complex, frail seniors with motivated caregivers.
There is insufficient evidence for the following interventions in medically complex, frail seniors with motivated caregivers:
habit retraining, and
timed voiding.
PMCID: PMC3377527  PMID: 23074508
8.  Exercise for Fall Risk Reduction in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review 
Physiotherapy Canada  2008;60(4):358-372.
Purpose:
To evaluate the influence of exercise on falls and fall risk reduction in community-dwelling older adults and to present an updated synthesis of outcome measures for the assessment of fall risk in community-dwelling older adults.
Method:
A systematic review was performed, considering English-language articles published from 2000 to 2006 and accessible through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PEDro, EMBASE, and/or AMED. Included were randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that used an exercise or physical activity intervention and involved participants over age 50. Screening and methodological quality for internal validity were conducted by two independent reviewers.
Results:
The search retrieved 156 abstracts; 22 articles met the internal validity criteria. Both individualized and group exercise programmes were found to be effective in reducing falls and fall risk. The optimal type, frequency, and dose of exercise to achieve a positive effect have not been determined. A variety of outcome measures have been used to measure fall risk, especially for balance.
Conclusions:
Falls and fall risk can be reduced with exercise interventions in the community-dwelling elderly, although the most effective exercise variables are unknown. Future studies in populations with comorbidities known to increase fall risk will help determine optimal, condition-specific fall-prevention programmes. Poor balance is a key risk factor for falls; therefore, the best measure of this variable should be selected when evaluating patients at risk of falling.
doi:10.3138/physio.60.4.358
PMCID: PMC2792788  PMID: 20145768
accidental falls; exercise; fall risk; systematic review; chutes accidentelles; étude méthodique; exercice; risque de chute
9.  Strategies for Increasing Recruitment to Randomised Controlled Trials: Systematic Review 
PLoS Medicine  2010;7(11):e1000368.
Patrina Caldwell and colleagues performed a systematic review of randomized studies that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into trials, and found that strategies that focus on increasing potential participants' awareness of the specific health problem, and that engaged them, appeared to increase recruitment.
Background
Recruitment of participants into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is critical for successful trial conduct. Although there have been two previous systematic reviews on related topics, the results (which identified specific interventions) were inconclusive and not generalizable. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of recruitment strategies for participation in RCTs.
Methods and Findings
A systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline for reporting of systematic reviews, that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into an actual or mock RCT were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies. From over 16,000 titles or abstracts reviewed, 396 papers were retrieved and 37 studies were included, in which 18,812 of at least 59,354 people approached agreed to participate in a clinical RCT. Recruitment strategies were broadly divided into four groups: novel trial designs (eight studies), recruiter differences (eight studies), incentives (two studies), and provision of trial information (19 studies). Strategies that increased people's awareness of the health problem being studied (e.g., an interactive computer program [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–2.18], attendance at an education session [RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01–1.28], addition of a health questionnaire [RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14–1.66]), or a video about the health condition (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.11–2.74), and also monetary incentives (RR1.39, 95% CI 1.13–1.64 to RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28–1.84) improved recruitment. Increasing patients' understanding of the trial process, recruiter differences, and various methods of randomisation and consent design did not show a difference in recruitment. Consent rates were also higher for nonblinded trial design, but differential loss to follow up between groups may jeopardise the study findings. The study's main limitation was the necessity of modifying the search strategy with subsequent search updates because of changes in MEDLINE definitions. The abstracts of previous versions of this systematic review were published in 2002 and 2007.
Conclusion
Recruitment strategies that focus on increasing potential participants' awareness of the health problem being studied, its potential impact on their health, and their engagement in the learning process appeared to increase recruitment to clinical studies. Further trials of recruitment strategies that target engaging participants to increase their awareness of the health problems being studied and the potential impact on their health may confirm this hypothesis.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
Before any health care intervention—a treatment for a disease or a measure such as vaccination that is designed to prevent an illness—is adopted by the medical community, it undergoes exhaustive laboratory-based and clinical research. In the laboratory, scientists investigate the causes of diseases, identify potential new treatments or preventive methods, and test these interventions in animals. New interventions that look hopeful are then investigated in clinical trials—studies that test these interventions in people by following a strict trial protocol or action plan. Phase I trials test interventions in a few healthy volunteers or patients to evaluate their safety and to identify possible side effects. In phase II trials, a larger group of patients receives an intervention to evaluate its safety further and to get an initial idea of its effectiveness. In phase III trials, very large groups of patients (sometimes in excess of a thousand people) are randomly assigned to receive the new intervention or an established intervention or placebo (dummy intervention). These “randomized controlled trials” or “RCTs” provide the most reliable information about the effectiveness and safety of health care interventions.
Why Was This Study Done?
Patients who participate in clinical trials must fulfill the inclusion criteria laid down in the trial protocol and must be given information about the trial, its risks, and potential benefits before agreeing to participate (informed consent). Unfortunately, many RCTs struggle to enroll the number of patients specified in their trial protocol, which can reduce a trial's ability to measure the effect of a new intervention. Inadequate recruitment can also increase costs and, in the worst cases, prevent trial completion. Several strategies have been developed to improve recruitment but it is not clear which strategy works best. In this study, the researchers undertake a systematic review (a study that uses predefined criteria to identify all the research on a given topic) of “recruitment trials”—studies that have randomly divided potential RCT participants into groups, applied different strategies for recruitment to each group, and compared recruitment rates in the groups.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers identified 37 randomized trials of recruitment strategies into real and mock RCTs (where no actual trial occurred). In all, 18,812 people agreed to participate in an RCT in these recruitment trials out of at least 59,354 people approached. Some of these trials investigated novel strategies for recruitment, such as changes in how patients are randomized. Others looked at the effect of recruiter differences (for example, increased contact between the health care professionals doing the recruiting and the trial investigators), the effect of offering monetary incentives to participants, and the effect of giving more information about the trial to potential participants. Recruitment strategies that improved people's awareness of the health problem being studied—provision of an interactive computer program or a video about the health condition, attendance at an educational session, or inclusion of a health questionnaire in the recruitment process—improved recruitment rates, as did monetary incentives. Increasing patients' understanding about the trial process itself, recruiter differences, and alterations in consent design and randomization generally had no effect on recruitment rates although consent rates were higher when patients knew the treatment to which they had been randomly allocated before consenting. However, differential losses among the patients in different treatment groups in such nonblinded trials may jeopardize study findings.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings suggest that trial recruitment strategies that focus on increasing the awareness of potential participants of the health problem being studied and its possible effects on their health, and that engage potential participants in the trial process are likely to increase recruitment to RCTs. The accuracy of these findings depends on whether the researchers identified all the published research on recruitment strategies and on whether other research on recruitment strategies has been undertaken and not published that could alter these findings. Furthermore, because about half of the recruitment trials identified by the researchers were undertaken in the US, the successful strategies identified here might not be generalizable to other countries. Nevertheless, these recruitment strategies should now be investigated further to ensure that the future evaluation of new health care interventions is not hampered by poor recruitment into RCTs.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000368.
The ClinicalTrials.gov Web site is a searchable register of federally and privately supported clinical trials in the US and around the world, providing information about all aspects of clinical trials
The US National Institutes of Health provides information about clinical trials
The UK National Health Service Choices Web site has information for patients about clinical trials and medical research
The UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Units also provides information for patients about clinical trials and links to information on clinical trials provided by other organizations
MedlinePlus has links to further resources on clinical trials (in English and Spanish)
The Australian Government's National Health and Medical Research Council has information about clinical trials
WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform aims to ensure that all trials are publicly accessible to those making health care decisions
The Star Child Health International Forum of Standards for Research is a resource center for pediatric clinical trial design, conduct, and reporting
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000368
PMCID: PMC2976724  PMID: 21085696
10.  Evidence for the Selective Reporting of Analyses and Discrepancies in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies of Clinical Trials 
PLoS Medicine  2014;11(6):e1001666.
In a systematic review of cohort studies, Kerry Dwan and colleagues examine the evidence for selective reporting and discrepancies in analyses between journal publications and other documents for clinical trials.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Background
Most publications about selective reporting in clinical trials have focussed on outcomes. However, selective reporting of analyses for a given outcome may also affect the validity of findings. If analyses are selected on the basis of the results, reporting bias may occur. The aims of this study were to review and summarise the evidence from empirical cohort studies that assessed discrepant or selective reporting of analyses in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods and Findings
A systematic review was conducted and included cohort studies that assessed any aspect of the reporting of analyses of RCTs by comparing different trial documents, e.g., protocol compared to trial report, or different sections within a trial publication. The Cochrane Methodology Register, Medline (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), and PubMed were searched on 5 February 2014. Two authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Twenty-two studies (containing 3,140 RCTs) published between 2000 and 2013 were included. Twenty-two studies reported on discrepancies between information given in different sources. Discrepancies were found in statistical analyses (eight studies), composite outcomes (one study), the handling of missing data (three studies), unadjusted versus adjusted analyses (three studies), handling of continuous data (three studies), and subgroup analyses (12 studies). Discrepancy rates varied, ranging from 7% (3/42) to 88% (7/8) in statistical analyses, 46% (36/79) to 82% (23/28) in adjusted versus unadjusted analyses, and 61% (11/18) to 100% (25/25) in subgroup analyses. This review is limited in that none of the included studies investigated the evidence for bias resulting from selective reporting of analyses. It was not possible to combine studies to provide overall summary estimates, and so the results of studies are discussed narratively.
Conclusions
Discrepancies in analyses between publications and other study documentation were common, but reasons for these discrepancies were not discussed in the trial reports. To ensure transparency, protocols and statistical analysis plans need to be published, and investigators should adhere to these or explain discrepancies.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
In the past, clinicians relied on their own experience when choosing the best treatment for their patients. Nowadays, they turn to evidence-based medicine—the systematic review and appraisal of trials, studies that investigate the benefits and harms of medical treatments in patients. However, evidence-based medicine can guide clinicians only if all the results from clinical trials are published in an unbiased and timely manner. Unfortunately, the results of trials in which a new drug performs better than existing drugs are more likely to be published than those in which the new drug performs badly or has unwanted side effects (publication bias). Moreover, trial outcomes that support the use of a new treatment are more likely to be published than those that do not support its use (outcome reporting bias). Recent initiatives—such as making registration of clinical trials in a trial registry (for example, ClinicalTrials.gov) a prerequisite for publication in medical journals—aim to prevent these biases, which pose a threat to informed medical decision-making.
Why Was This Study Done?
Selective reporting of analyses of outcomes may also affect the validity of clinical trial findings. Sometimes, for example, a trial publication will include a per protocol analysis (which considers only the outcomes of patients who received their assigned treatment) rather than a pre-planned intention-to-treat analysis (which considers the outcomes of all the patients regardless of whether they received their assigned treatment). If the decision to publish the per protocol analysis is based on the results of this analysis being more favorable than those of the intention-to-treat analysis (which more closely resembles “real” life), then “analysis reporting bias” has occurred. In this systematic review, the researchers investigate the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by reviewing published studies that assessed selective reporting of analyses in groups (cohorts) of RCTs and discrepancies in analyses of RCTs between different sources (for example, between the protocol in a trial registry and the journal publication) or different sections of a source. A systematic review uses predefined criteria to identify all the research on a given topic.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers identified 22 cohort studies (containing 3,140 RCTs) that were eligible for inclusion in their systematic review. All of these studies reported on discrepancies between the information provided by the RCTs in different places, but none investigated the evidence for analysis reporting bias. Several of the cohort studies reported, for example, that there were discrepancies in the statistical analyses included in the different documents associated with the RCTs included in their analysis. Other types of discrepancies reported by the cohort studies included discrepancies in the reporting of composite outcomes (an outcome in which multiple end points are combined) and in the reporting of subgroup analyses (investigations of outcomes in subgroups of patients that should be predefined in the trial protocol to avoid bias). Discrepancy rates varied among the RCTs according to the types of analyses and cohort studies considered. Thus, whereas in one cohort study discrepancies were present in the statistical test used for the analysis of the primary outcome in only 7% of the included studies, they were present in the subgroup analyses of all the included studies.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings indicate that discrepancies in analyses between publications and other study documents such as protocols in trial registries are common. The reasons for these discrepancies in analyses were not discussed in trial reports but may be the result of reporting bias, errors, or legitimate departures from a pre-specified protocol. For example, a statistical analysis that is not specified in the trial protocol may sometimes appear in a publication because the journal requested its inclusion as a condition of publication. The researchers suggest that it may be impossible for systematic reviewers to distinguish between these possibilities simply by looking at the source documentation. Instead, they suggest, it may be necessary for reviewers to contact the trial authors. However, to make selective reporting of analyses more easily detectable, they suggest that protocols and analysis plans should be published and that investigators should be required to stick to these plans or explain any discrepancies when they publish their trial results. Together with other initiatives, this approach should help improve the quality of evidence-based medicine and, as a result, the treatment of patients.
Additional Information
Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001666.
Wikipedia has pages on evidence-based medicine, on systematic reviews, and on publication bias (note: Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit; available in several languages)
ClinicalTrials.gov provides information about the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry, including background information about clinical trials
The Cochrane Collaboration is a global independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates, and others that aims to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence; the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions describes the preparation of systematic reviews in detail
PLOS Medicine recently launched a Reporting Guidelines Collection, an open-access collection of reporting guidelines, commentary, and related research on guidelines from across PLOS journals that aims to help advance the efficiency, effectiveness, and equitability of the dissemination of biomedical information
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001666
PMCID: PMC4068996  PMID: 24959719
11.  Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review 
BMJ Open  2012;2(1):e000496.
Background
Poor recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a widespread problem. Provision of interventions aimed at supporting or incentivising clinicians may improve recruitment to RCTs.
Objectives
To quantify the effects of strategies aimed at improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in RCTs, complemented with a synthesis of qualitative evidence related to clinicians' attitudes towards recruiting to RCTs.
Data sources
A systematic review of English and non-English articles identified from: The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ebsco CINAHL, Index to Theses and Open SIGLE from 2001 to March 2011. Additional reports were identified through citation searches of included articles.
Study eligibility criteria
Quantitative studies were included if they evaluated interventions aimed at improving the recruitment activity of clinicians or compared recruitment by different groups of clinicians. Information about host trial, study design, participants, interventions, outcomes and host RCT was extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using a standardised tool, the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Qualitative studies were included if they investigated clinicians' attitudes to recruiting patients to RCTs. All results/findings were extracted, and content analysis was carried out. Overarching themes were abstracted, followed by a metasummary analysis. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist.
Data extraction
Data extraction was carried out by one researcher using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators, and verified by another.
Results
Eight quantitative studies were included describing four interventions and a comparison of recruiting clinicians. One study was rated as strong, one as moderate and the remaining six as weak when assessed for quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Effective interventions included the use of qualitative research to identify and overcome barriers to recruitment, reduction of the clinical workload associated with participation in RCTs and the provision of extra training and protected research time. Eleven qualitative studies were identified, and eight themes were abstracted from the data: understanding of research, communication, perceived patient barriers, patient–clinician relationship, effect on patients, effect on clinical practice, individual benefits for clinicians and methods associated with successful recruitment. Metasummary analysis identified the most frequently reported subthemes to be: difficulty communicating trial methods, poor understanding of research and priority given to patient well-being. Overall, the qualitative studies were found to be of good quality when assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist.
Conclusions
There were few high-quality trials that tested interventions to improve clinicians' recruitment activity in RCTs. The most promising intervention was the use of qualitative methods to identify and overcome barriers to clinician recruitment activity. More good quality studies of interventions are needed to add to the evidence base. The metasummary of qualitative findings identified understanding and communicating RCT methods as a key target for future interventions to improve recruitment. Reinforcement of the potential benefits, both for clinicians and for their patients, could also be a successful factor in improving recruitment. A bias was found towards investigating barriers to recruitment, so future work should also encompass a focus on successfully recruiting trials.
Article summary
Article focus
A systematic review to identify and synthesise evidence of evaluations of interventions aimed at improving clinician recruitment activity in RCTs, and evidence of clinicians' attitudes towards recruiting to RCTs.
Key messages
Evidence-based recruitment interventions aimed at supporting/incentivising clinicians are necessary for future RCTs to recruit successfully. However, evidence of successful interventions is currently limited, and interventions are being used that have limited evidential grounding. The most promising intervention identified by this review was the use of qualitative methods embedded in host RCTs to define appropriate methods, targeted at clinicians, relevant to the context of the individual studies.
The review of qualitative evidence identified a number of themes relating to clinicians' attitudes towards recruitment to RCTs. The metasummary isolated targets for future interventions aimed at improving clinicians' recruitment activity. Of particular interest were communication of trial methods, education to remove misunderstanding of trial methods and reinforcement of the potential benefits of RCTs, both for clinicians and for their patients.
Strengths and limitations of this study
Strengths
This review encompasses both quantitative and qualitative evidence regarding clinician involvement in recruiting to RCTs. As such, it highlights the available evidence, successful and unsuccessful interventions, areas of uncertainty and also targets for the design of future interventions.
Qualitative data were managed and synthesised according to a set methodology and are therefore a step beyond simple narrative review. Qualitative metasummary can be the final product of a synthesis project or used as the initial step in a metasynthesis project. The purpose of qualitative metasummary was to determine how frequently each abstracted thematic finding occurred in the included studies. Qualitative metasummary is appropriate for synthesising studies that are thematic summaries or surveys of data.
Limitations
The quality of evidence varied, and the review includes a wide range of study designs, making comparisons of interventions difficult. It is clear that RCTs of trial recruitment interventions are perceived to be difficult to carry out, so other study designs are commonly used. RCTs of recruitment interventions should be encouraged in order to increase the quality of currently available evidence.
Methodological challenges included designing a broad search to encompass qualitative and quantitative research, quality assessment of various quantitative study designs by one set of criteria and standardising the data extraction and synthesis of qualitative evidence. There are no set guidelines regarding the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence, but it is clear that for many review questions limiting the included study designs would lead to empty reviews.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496
PMCID: PMC3253423  PMID: 22228729
12.  The effect of fall prevention exercise programmes on fall induced injuries in community dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials 
Objective To determine whether, and to what extent, fall prevention exercise interventions for older community dwelling people are effective in preventing different types of fall related injuries.
Data sources Electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and CINAHL) and reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews from inception to July 2013.
Study selection Randomised controlled trials of fall prevention exercise interventions, targeting older (>60 years) community dwelling people and providing quantitative data on injurious falls, serious falls, or fall related fractures.
Data synthesis Based on a systematic review of the case definitions used in the selected studies, we grouped the definitions of injurious falls into more homogeneous categories to allow comparisons of results across studies and the pooling of data. For each study we extracted or calculated the rate ratio of injurious falls. Depending on the available data, a given study could contribute data relevant to one or more categories of injurious falls. A pooled rate ratio was estimated for each category of injurious falls based on random effects models.
Results 17 trials involving 4305 participants were eligible for meta-analysis. Four categories of falls were identified: all injurious falls, falls resulting in medical care, severe injurious falls, and falls resulting in fractures. Exercise had a significant effect in all categories, with pooled estimates of the rate ratios of 0.63 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.77, 10 trials) for all injurious falls, 0.70 (0.54 to 0.92, 8 trials) for falls resulting in medical care, 0.57 (0.36 to 0.90, 7 trials) for severe injurious falls, and 0.39 (0.22 to 0.66, 6 trials) for falls resulting in fractures, but significant heterogeneity was observed between studies of all injurious falls (I2=50%, P=0.04).
Conclusions Exercise programmes designed to prevent falls in older adults also seem to prevent injuries caused by falls, including the most severe ones. Such programmes also reduce the rate of falls leading to medical care.
doi:10.1136/bmj.f6234
PMCID: PMC3812467  PMID: 24169944
13.  Percutaneous Vertebroplasty for Treatment of Painful Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures 
Executive Summary
Objective of Analysis
The objective of this analysis is to examine the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) compared with conservative treatment.
Clinical Need and Target Population
Osteoporosis and associated fractures are important health issues in ageing populations. Vertebral compression fracture secondary to osteoporosis is a cause of morbidity in older adults. VCFs can affect both genders, but are more common among elderly females and can occur as a result of a fall or a minor trauma. The fracture may occur spontaneously during a simple activity such as picking up an object or rising up from a chair. Pain originating from the fracture site frequently increases with weight bearing. It is most severe during the first few weeks and decreases with rest and inactivity.
Traditional treatment of painful VCFs includes bed rest, analgesic use, back bracing and muscle relaxants. The comorbidities associated with VCFs include deep venous thrombosis, acceleration of osteopenea, loss of height, respiratory problems and emotional problems due to chronic pain.
Percutaneous vertebroplasty is a minimally invasive surgical procedure that has gained popularity as a new treatment option in the care for these patients. The technique of vertebroplasty was initially developed in France to treat osteolytic metastasis, myeloma, and hemangioma. The indications were further expanded to painful osteoporotic VCFs and subsequently to treatment of asymptomatic VCFs.
The mechanism of pain relief, which occurs within minutes to hours after vertebroplasty, is still not known. Pain pathways in the surrounding tissue appear to be altered in response to mechanical, chemical, vascular, and thermal stimuli after the injection of the cement. It has been suggested that mechanisms other than mechanical stabilization of the fracture, such as thermal injury to the nerve endings, results in immediate pain relief.
Percutaneous Vertebroplasty
Percutaneous vertebroplasty is performed with the patient in prone position and under local or general anesthesia. The procedure involves fluoroscopic imaging to guide the injection of bone cement into the fractured vertebral body to support the fractured bone. After injection of the cement, the patient is placed in supine position for about 1 hour while the cement hardens.
Cement leakage is the most frequent complication of vertebroplasty. The leakages may remain asymptomatic or cause symptoms of nerve irritation through compression of nerve roots. There are several reports of pulmonary cement embolism (PCE) following vertebroplasty. In some cases, the PCE may remain asymptomatic. Symptomatic PCE can be recognized by their clinical signs and symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, tachypnea, cyanosis, coughing, hemoptysis, dizziness, and sweating.
Research Methods
Literature Search
A literature search was performed on Feb 9, 2010 using OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) for studies published from January 1, 2005 to February 9, 2010.
Studies were initially reviewed by titles and abstracts. For those studies meeting the eligibility criteria, full-text articles were obtained and reviewed. Reference lists were also examined for any additional relevant studies not identified through the search. Articles with an unknown eligibility were reviewed with a second clinical epidemiologist and then a group of epidemiologists until consensus was established. Data extraction was carried out by the author.
Inclusion Criteria
Study design: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vertebroplasty with a control group or other interventions
Study population: Adult patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures
Study sample size: Studies included 20 or more patients
English language full-reports
Published between Jan 1 2005 and Feb 9, 2010
(eligible studies identified through the Auto Alert function of the search were also included)
Exclusion Criteria
Non-randomized studies
Studies on conditions other than VCF (e.g. patients with multiple myeloma or metastatic tumors)
Studies focused on surgical techniques
Studies lacking outcome measures
Results of Evidence-Based Analysis
A systematic search yielded 168 citations. The titles and the abstracts of the citations were reviewed and full text of the identified citations was retrieved for further consideration. Upon review of the full publications and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 5 RCTs were identified. Of these, two compared vertebroplasty with sham procedure, two compared vertebroplasty with conservative treatment, and one compared vertebroplasty with balloon kyphoplasty.
Randomized Controlled Trials
Recently, the results of two blinded randomized placebo-controlled trials of percutaneous vertebroplasty were reported. These trials, providing the highest quality of evidence available to date, do not support the use of vertebroplasty in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Based on the results of these trials, vertebroplasty offer no additional benefit over usual care and is not risk free.
In these trials the treatment allocation was blinded to the patients and outcome assessors. The control group received a sham procedure simulating vertebroplasty to minimize the effect of expectations and to reduce the potential for bias in self-reporting of outcomes. Both trials applied stringent exclusion criteria so that the results are generalizable to the patient populations that are candidates for vertebroplasty. In both trials vertebroplasty procedures were performed by highly skilled interventionists. Multiple valid outcome measures including pain, physical, mental, and social function were employed to test the between group differences in outcomes.
Prior to these two trials, there were two open randomized trials in which vertebroplasty was compared with conservative medical treatment. In the first randomized trial, patients were allowed to cross over to the other arm and had to be stopped after two weeks due to the high numbers of patients crossing over. The other study did not allow cross over and recently published the results of 12 months follow-up.
The following is the summary of the results of these 4 trials:
Two blinded RCTs on vertebroplasty provide the highest level of evidence available to date. Results of these two trials are supported by findings of an open randomized trial with 12 months follow-up. Blinded RCTs showed:
No significant differences in pain scores of patients who received vertebroplasty and patients who received a sham procedure as measured at 3 days, 2 weeks and 1 month in one study and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months in the other.
The observed differences in pain scores between the two groups were neither statistically significant nor clinically important at any time points.
The above findings were consistent with the findings of an open RCT in which patients were followed for 12 months. This study showed that improvement in pain was similar between the two groups at 3 months and were sustained to 12 months.
In the blinded RCTs, physical, mental, and social functioning were measured at the above time points using 4-5 of the following 7 instruments: RDQ, EQ-5D, SF-36 PCS, SF-36 MCS, AQoL, QUALEFFO, SOF-ADL
There were no significant differences in any of these measures between patients who received vertebroplasty and patients who received a sham procedure at any of the above time points (with a few exceptions in favour of control intervention).
These findings were also consistent with the findings of an open RCT which demonstrated no significant between group differences in scores of ED-5Q, SF-36 PCS, SF 36 MCS, DPQ, Barthel, and MMSE which measure physical, mental, and social functioning (with a few exceptions in favour of control intervention).
One small (n=34) open RCT with a two week follow-up detected a significantly higher improvement in pain scores at 1 day after the intervention in vertebroplasty group compared with conservative treatment group. However, at 2 weeks follow-up, this difference was smaller and was not statistically significant.
Conservative treatment was associated with fewer clinically important complications
Risk of new VCFs following vertebroplasty was higher than those in conservative treatment but it requires further investigation.
PMCID: PMC3377535  PMID: 23074396
14.  Head injury (moderate to severe) 
Clinical Evidence  2007;2007:1210.
Introduction
Head injury in young adults is often associated with motor vehicle accidents, violence, and sports injuries. In older adults it is often associated with falls. Severe head injury can lead to secondary brain damage from cerebral ischaemia resulting from hypotension, hypercapnia, and raised intracranial pressure. Severity of brain injury is assessed using the GCS. While about a quarter of people with severe brain injury (GCS score less than 8) will make a good recovery, about a third will die, and a fifth will have severe disability or be in a vegetative state.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to reduce complications of moderate to severe head injury as defined by Glasgow Coma Scale? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 17 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, anticonvulsants, corticosteroids, hyperventilation, hypothermia, and mannitol.
Key Points
Head injury in young adults is often associated with motor vehicle accidents, violence, and sports injuries. In older adults it is often associated with falls. This review covers moderate to severe head injury only. Severe head injury can lead to secondary brain damage from cerebral ischaemia resulting from hypotension, hypercapnia, and raised intracranial pressure.Poor outcome correlates with low post-resuscitation Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, older age, eye pupil abnormalities, hypoxia or hypotension before definitive treatment, traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage, and inability to control intracranial pressure.Severity of brain injury is assessed using the GCS. While about a quarter of people with severe brain injury (GCS score less than 8) will make a good recovery, about a third will die, and a fifth will have severe disability or be in a vegetative state.
There is no strong evidence of benefit from any treatment in reducing the complications of moderate to severe head injury. Despite this, most clinicians implement various combinations of treatments discussed here.
Hyperventilation and mannitol are frequently used to lower intracranial pressure. Anticonvulsants, barbiturates, antibiotics, and hypothermia are less commonly implemented. Evidence on hyperventilation, mild hypothermia, and mannitol has been inconclusive. Carbamazepine and phenytoin may reduce early seizures in people with head injury, but have not been shown to reduce late seizures, neurological disability, or death.Barbiturates have not been shown to be effective in reducing intracranial pressure or in preventing adverse neurological outcomes after head injury.Prophylactic antibiotics have not been shown to reduce the risks of death or meningitis in people with skull fracture.
CAUTION: Corticosteroids have been shown to increase mortality when used acutely in people with head injury. One large RCT (the CRASH trial) found that death from all causes and severe disability at 6 months were more likely in people with head injury given methylprednisolone infusion than in those given placebo. Corticosteroids are no longer used in the treatment of head injuries.
PMCID: PMC2943769  PMID: 19450357
15.  Head injury (moderate to severe) 
Clinical Evidence  2010;2010:1210.
Introduction
Head injury in young adults is often associated with motor vehicle accidents, violence, and sports injuries. In older adults it is often associated with falls. Severe head injury can lead to secondary brain damage from cerebral ischaemia resulting from hypotension, hypercapnia, and raised intracranial pressure. Severity of brain injury is assessed using the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). While about one quarter of people with severe brain injury (GCS score less than 8) will make a good recovery, about one third will die, and one fifth will have severe disability or be in a vegetative state.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to reduce complications of moderate to severe head injury as defined by Glasgow Coma Scale? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to November 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 17 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, anticonvulsants, corticosteroids, hyperventilation, hypothermia, and mannitol.
Key Points
Head injury in young adults is often associated with motor vehicle accidents, violence, and sports injuries. In older adults it is often associated with falls. This review covers only moderate to severe head injury. Severe head injury can lead to secondary brain damage from cerebral ischaemia resulting from hypotension, hypercapnia, and raised intracranial pressure.Poor outcome correlates with low post-resuscitation Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, older age, eye pupil abnormalities, hypoxia or hypotension before definitive treatment, traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage, and inability to control intracranial pressure.Severity of brain injury is assessed using the GCS. While about one quarter of people with severe brain injury (GCS score less than 8) will make a good recovery, about one third will die, and one fifth will have severe disability or be in a vegetative state.
There is no strong evidence of benefit from any treatment in reducing the complications of moderate to severe head injury. Despite this, most clinicians implement various combinations of treatments discussed here.
Hyperventilation and mannitol are frequently used to lower intracranial pressure. Anticonvulsants, barbiturates, antibiotics, and hypothermia are less commonly implemented. Evidence on hyperventilation, mild hypothermia, and mannitol has been inconclusive. Carbamazepine and phenytoin may reduce early seizures in people with head injury, but they have not been shown to reduce late seizures, neurological disability, or death.Barbiturates have not been shown to be effective in reducing intracranial pressure or in preventing adverse neurological outcomes after head injury.Prophylactic antibiotics have not been shown to reduce the risk of death or meningitis in people with skull fracture.
CAUTION: Corticosteroids have been shown to increase mortality when used acutely in people with head injury. One large RCT (the CRASH trial) found that death from all causes and severe disability at 6 months were more likely in people with head injury given methylprednisolone infusion than in those given placebo. Corticosteroids are no longer used in the treatment of head injuries.
PMCID: PMC3217652  PMID: 21418686
16.  The effect of interactive cognitive-motor training in reducing fall risk in older people: a systematic review 
BMC Geriatrics  2014;14(1):107.
Background
It is well-known physical exercise programs can reduce falls in older people. Recently, several studies have evaluated interactive cognitive-motor training that combines cognitive and gross motor physical exercise components. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effects of these interactive cognitive-motor interventions on fall risk in older people.
Methods
Studies were identified with searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from their inception up to 31 December 2013. Criteria for inclusion were a) at least one treatment arm that contained an interactive cognitive-motor intervention component; b) a minimum age of 60 or a mean age of 65 years; c) reported falls or at least one physical, psychological or cognitive fall risk factor as an outcome measure; d) published in Dutch, English or German. Single case studies and robot-assisted training interventions were excluded. Due to the diversity of populations included, outcome measures and heterogeneity in study designs, no meta-analyses were conducted.
Results
Thirty-seven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Reporting and methodological quality were often poor and sample sizes were mostly small. One pilot study found balance board training reduced falls and most studies reported training improved physical (e.g. balance and strength) and cognitive (e.g. attention, executive function) measures. Inconsistent results were found for psychological measures related to falls-efficacy. Very few between-group differences were evident when interactive cognitive-motor interventions were compared to traditional training programs.
Conclusions
The review findings provide preliminary evidence that interactive cognitive-motor interventions can improve physical and cognitive fall risk factors in older people, but that the effect of such interventions on falls has not been definitively demonstrated. Interactive cognitive-motor interventions appear to be of equivalent efficacy in ameliorating fall risk as traditional training programs. However, as most studies have methodological limitations, larger, high-quality trials are needed.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-107) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-107
PMCID: PMC4181419  PMID: 25240384
Accidental falls; Aged; Interactive cognitive-motor training; Exercise; Balance; Gait; Fear of falling; Cognition; Executive function; Attention
17.  Foot Orthoses in Lower Limb Overuse Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis—Critical Appraisal and Commentary 
Journal of Athletic Training  2011;46(1):103-106.
Abstract
Reference/Citation:
Collins N, Bisset L, McPoil T, Vicenzino B. Foot orthoses in lower limb overuse conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28(3):396–412.
Clinical Question:
Among patients with or at risk for musculoskeletal overuse conditions, (1) do foot orthoses provide clinically meaningful improvements, and (2) are foot orthoses cost-effective?
Data Sources:
Studies published through September 28, 2005, were identified by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Pre-CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Biological Abstracts, Web of Science, Allied Health and Complementary Medicine Database, and the full Cochrane Library. The authors did not provide the search strategy used. Reference lists of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and identified systematic reviews were searched by hand.
Study Selection:
Studies were included if (1) they were RCTs that included the use of foot orthoses (either custom or prefabricated) in 1 of the intervention groups, (2) the clinical problem was an overuse condition as defined by the American College of Foot and Ankle Orthopedics and Medicine guidelines for which foot orthoses were recommended, and (3) at least 1 clinically relevant outcome was measured for a minimum of 1 week. Limits were not placed on year of publication, status of publication, or language.
Data Extraction:
The journal, authors, and author affiliations of included RCTs were masked from 2 of the reviewers who independently assessed the included RCTs for methodologic quality using a modified PEDro scale plus 3 additional items (justification of sample size, use of outcome measures with known validity and reliability, and reporting of adverse or side effects). Disagreements on methodologic quality were resolved with consensus or by a third reviewer. The effect sizes for the included RCTs were represented by relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data. Confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for RR and SMD. Study data were extracted directly from each of the included studies. If provided, data from intention-to-treat analysis were extracted. Study authors were contacted when insufficient data were reported. A meta-analysis (random-effects model) was conducted using Review Manager (version 4.2; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark).
Main Results:
The search identified 3192 potentially relevant studies. Full articles were retrieved for 327 studies. Twenty-two of the 327 studies met the inclusion criteria. Because the authors of 1 study used the same methods to report on 2 populations, a total of 23 RCTs were included in the systematic review. Prevention of lower limb overuse conditions with the use of foot orthoses was reported in 8 RCTs (7 studies). The effect of foot orthoses in the treatment of lower limb overuse conditions was reported in 15 RCTs. Of the 23 RCTs, the cost-effectiveness of foot orthoses was reported in 2 and the adverse effects of foot orthoses were reported in 8. Across the prevention RCTs, data were available for analysis for a range of 47 to 417 participants with 8 to 16 weeks of follow-up. Based on 4 RCTs in which the researchers examined prevention of lower limb overuse conditions with foot orthoses versus control in military personnel, the RR was 1.49 (95% CI  =  1.07, 2.08). A clinically beneficial effect size was set a priori at 1.5 or greater for the foot-orthoses group or at 0.7 or less for the comparison group. Based on 2 RCTs reported in 1 study of the use of custom versus prefabricated foot orthoses for prevention of lower limb overuse conditions, no significant difference in risk was found (RR  =  1.14, 95% CI  =  0.90, 1.44). In their calculating and reporting of RR, the authors do not appear to have followed convention. Across the treatment RCTs, data were available for analysis for a range of 18 to 133 participants with 8 to 52 weeks of follow-up. The authors of the treatment RCTs reported a variety of outcome measures. Two of these, patient-perceived treatment effect (PPE) and pain on the visual analog scale (VAS), were used to calculate an overall treatment effect (PPE as RR and VAS as SMD). Based on 2 RCTs examining foot orthoses versus control, no significant difference in PPE was found (RR  =  1.01, 95% CI  =  0.61, 1.68). Based on 2 RCTs in which custom versus prefabricated foot orthoses were examined, no significant difference in PPE was found (RR  =  0.88, 95% CI  =  0.42, 1.81). The VAS data reported in the text appear to contradict the VAS data reported in Figure 2 for foot orthoses versus control for the treatment of lower limb overuse conditions. Specifically, the lower limit of the CI in the text was negative (−0.28) and in Figure 2 was positive. Because of this apparent contradiction, we did not interpret these data. Authors of 2 RCTs reported cost-effectiveness, but the data could not be pooled. Adverse events were reported in 8 of the 22 studies. The most common adverse effect reported was discomfort, which was the main reason for discontinuing foot-orthoses use in 2 studies.
Conclusions:
The evidence supports the use of foot orthoses to prevent a first occurrence of lower limb overuse conditions and shows no difference between custom and prefabricated foot orthoses. The evidence was insufficient to recommend foot orthoses (custom or prefabricated) for the treatment of lower limb overuse conditions.
doi:10.4085/1062-6050-46.1.103
PMCID: PMC3017481  PMID: 21214358
overuse injuries; foot orthotics
18.  School Playground Surfacing and Arm Fractures in Children: A Cluster Randomized Trial Comparing Sand to Wood Chip Surfaces 
PLoS Medicine  2009;6(12):e1000195.
In a randomized trial of elementary schools in Toronto, Andrew Howard and colleagues show that granitic sand playground surfaces reduce the risk of arm fractures from playground falls when compared with wood fiber surfaces.
Background
The risk of playground injuries, especially fractures, is prevalent in children, and can result in emergency room treatment and hospital admissions. Fall height and surface area are major determinants of playground fall injury risk. The primary objective was to determine if there was a difference in playground upper extremity fracture rates in school playgrounds with wood fibre surfacing versus granite sand surfacing. Secondary objectives were to determine if there were differences in overall playground injury rates or in head injury rates in school playgrounds with wood fibre surfacing compared to school playgrounds with granite sand surfacing.
Methods and Findings
The cluster randomized trial comprised 37 elementary schools in the Toronto District School Board in Toronto, Canada with a total of 15,074 students. Each school received qualified funding for installation of new playground equipment and surfacing. The risk of arm fracture from playground falls onto granitic sand versus onto engineered wood fibre surfaces was compared, with an outcome measure of estimated arm fracture rate per 100,000 student-months. Schools were randomly assigned by computer generated list to receive either a granitic sand or an engineered wood fibre playground surface (Fibar), and were not blinded. Schools were visited to ascertain details of the playground and surface actually installed and to observe the exposure to play and to periodically monitor the depth of the surfacing material. Injury data, including details of circumstance and diagnosis, were collected at each school by a prospective surveillance system with confirmation of injury details through a validated telephone interview with parents and also through collection (with consent) of medical reports regarding treated injuries. All schools were recruited together at the beginning of the trial, which is now closed after 2.5 years of injury data collection. Compliant schools included 12 schools randomized to Fibar that installed Fibar and seven schools randomized to sand that installed sand. Noncompliant schools were added to the analysis to complete a cohort type analysis by treatment received (two schools that were randomized to Fibar but installed sand and seven schools that were randomized to sand but installed Fibar). Among compliant schools, an arm fracture rate of 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04–6.9) per 100,000 student-months was observed for falls into sand, compared with an arm fracture rate of 9.4 (95% CI 3.7–21.4) for falls onto Fibar surfaces (p≤0.04905). Among all schools, the arm fracture rate was 4.5 (95% CI 0.26–15.9) per 100,000 student-months for falls into sand compared with 12.9 (95% CI 5.1–30.1) for falls onto Fibar surfaces. No serious head injuries and no fatalities were observed in either group.
Conclusions
Granitic sand playground surfaces reduce the risk of arm fractures from playground falls when compared with engineered wood fibre surfaces. Upgrading playground surfacing standards to reflect this information will prevent arm fractures.
Trial Registration
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02647424
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
Playgrounds and outdoor play equipment provide children with a place to let steam off, play creatively, socialize, and learn new skills. And, in a world where childhood obesity is a burgeoning problem, playgrounds provide a place where children can be encouraged to exercise. But playgrounds are not without hazards. Even in well-maintained and well-run facilities, children can hurt themselves by falling off climbing frames, monkey bars, and other equipment or by falling from standing height during playground games such as tag. In the US alone, more than 200,000 children are treated in emergency departments for injuries sustained in playgrounds every year and about 6,400 children are admitted to hospitals because of playground injuries, most of which are bone fractures (broken bones). In fact, playground injuries in the US are more severe and have a higher hospital admission rate than any other sort of child injury except those involving vehicles.
Why Was This Study Done?
Children who fall off playground equipment are nearly four times as likely to break a bone (often in an arm) as children who fall from standing height. To reduce the number of fractures that occur in playgrounds, some governments have limited the height of playground equipment. Some have also set standards for the type of surfaces installed in playgrounds and for the depth of sand or engineered wood fiber in loose fill surfaces. These standards are based on laboratory tests in which headforms (artificial heads) are dropped onto surfaces. However, these tests provide no information about the ability of different surfaces to prevent broken arms and other specific injuries in the real world. In this cluster randomized trial (a study in which groups of people are randomly assigned to receive different interventions), the researchers compare the rates of arm fractures in elementary (primary) school playgrounds in Toronto (Canada) that have wood fiber surfacing with the rates in playgrounds that have granite sand surfacing.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers randomly assigned 37 elementary schools that had qualified for school board funding for replacement playground equipment to receive either wood fiber (19 schools) or granite sand surfacing (18 schools) in their playgrounds. 19 of the schools complied with their randomization (12 installed fiber and seven installed sand); two schools installed sand although they were randomized to install fiber and seven schools installed fiber instead of sand. The researchers evaluated the playgrounds and their surfaces several times during the 2.5-year study and collected data on how playground injuries happened and types of injuries from the schools, parents, and medical reports. Among the schools that complied with randomization, falls from height into sand resulted in 1.9 arm fractures per 100,000 student-months whereas falls into fiber resulted in 9.4 arm fractures per 100,000 student-months. Arm fracture rates and other injury rates were also higher for falls from height into fiber than into sand when all the schools that had installed new surfaces were considered. However, the rates of arm fracture and other injuries that did not involve a fall from height did not vary between surfaces.
What Do These Findings Mean?
The accuracy of these findings is limited by the small number of arm fractures that occurred during the trial—only 20 children who fell into fiber and two who fell into sand broke an arm. The accuracy of the findings may also be limited by the failure of many schools to comply with randomization although the researchers found no obvious differences between the schools that did and did not comply with randomization that might have affected the trial's outcome. However, even with these limitations, the findings of this real-world study indicate that granitic sand surfaces substantially reduce the risk of arm fractures and other injuries caused by falls from playground equipment when compared with wood fiber surfaces. Thus, because falls from playground equipment are more likely to cause a fracture than falls from standing height, if playground surfacing standards are adjusted to reflect the findings of this study (that is, if sand surfaces are recommended in preference to wood fiber surfaces), many arm fractures in children should be prevented.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000195.
Safe Kids Canada provides information about playground safety and other aspects of childhood safety (in English and French)
Safe Kids Worldwide is a global network of organizations whose mission is to prevent accidental childhood injury (in English and Spanish)
The Nemours Foundation, a nonprofit organization for child health, provides information for parents on playground safety
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents provides information on the safety of indoor and outdoor play areas
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides fact sheets on playground injuries
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission also has information on playground safety, including resources designed for children such as The Further Adventures of Kidd Safety and Little Big Kids, a booklet on play safety written by children for children
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000195
PMCID: PMC2784292  PMID: 20016688
19.  Factors influencing the implementation of fall-prevention programmes: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies 
Background
More than a third of people over the age of 65 years fall each year. Falling can lead to a reduction in quality of life, mortality, and a risk of prolonged hospitalisation. Reducing and preventing falls has become an international health priority. To help understand why research evidence has often not been translated into changes in clinical practice, we undertook a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research in order to identify what factors serve as barriers and facilitators to the successful implementation of fall-prevention programmes.
Methods
We conducted a review of literature published between 1980 and January 2012 for qualitative research studies that examined barriers and facilitators to the effective implementation of fall-prevention interventions among community-dwelling older people and healthcare professionals. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality according to predefined criteria. Findings were synthesised using meta-ethnography.
Results
Of the 5010 articles identified through database searching, 19 were included in the review. Analysis of the 19 studies revealed limited information about the mechanisms by which barriers to implementation of fall-prevention interventions had been overcome. Data synthesis produced three overarching concepts: (1) practical considerations, (2) adapting for community, and (3) psychosocial. A line of argument synthesis describes the barriers and facilitators to the successful implementation of fall-prevention programmes. These concepts show that the implementation of fall-prevention programmes is complex and multifactorial. This is the first systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies to examine factors influencing the implementation of fall-prevention programmes from the perspectives of both the healthcare professional and the community-dwelling older person.
Conclusions
The current literature on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of fall-prevention programmes examines a variety of interventions. However, the ways in which the interventions are reported suggests there are substantial methodological challenges that often inhibit implementation into practice. We recommend that successful implementation requires individuals, professionals, and organisations to modify established behaviours, thoughts, and practice. The issues identified through this synthesis need to be fully considered and addressed if fall-prevention programmes are to be successfully implemented into clinical practice.
doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-91
PMCID: PMC3576261  PMID: 22978693
Fall prevention; Systematic review; Meta-ethnography; Implementation
20.  Efficacy and Degree of Bias in Knee Injury Prevention Studies: A Systematic Review of RCTs 
Background
Knee injury prevention programs have been developed to address the epidemic of knee injuries in young athletes. These programs include exercises that focus on balance, proprioception, and neuromuscular control. Some studies have suggested such specialized exercise programs may reduce the risk of knee injury.
Questions/purposes
We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of knee injury prevention programs and evaluated the risks of bias in these studies.
Methods
We performed a systematic search using MEDLINE (from 1966), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane (CENTRAL), and EMBASE (from 1974) in April 2011. The searches were limited to RCTs. Two reviewers independently assessed the internal validity of the included studies using the van Tulder critical appraisal tool for RCTs. Authors were contacted when internal validity was unclear in the methodology. Ten Level I studies (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. The average risk of bias score for these studies was 7 of 11 (range, 5–10).
Results
Two of the 10 studies reported a reduction in knee injuries. Of the three studies that provided ACL injuries as an outcome measure, none showed a reduction in overall ACL injury.
Conclusions
Current evidence suggests most (eight of 10) well-designed RCTs show no difference of treatment benefit. Perhaps refinements of interventions may lead to a reduction in knee and ACL injuries in future trials. Limitations in the number and heterogeneity of currently published RCTs of injury prevention programs place restraints on quantifying intervention efficacy with a meta-analytic approach. Future research articles should more clearly describe the different elements of their methodology, consistent with the standards set forth by the CONSORT statement.
doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2565-3
PMCID: PMC3528897  PMID: 22961316
21.  Preventing falls among older people with mental health problems: a systematic review 
BMC Nursing  2014;13:4.
Background
Falls are a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in older people and the risk of falling is exacerbated by mental health conditions. Existing reviews have focused on people with dementia and cognitive impairment, but not those with other mental health conditions or in mental health settings. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions for older people with mental health problems being cared for across all settings.
Methods
A systematic review of fall prevention interventions for older people with mental health conditions. We undertook electronic database and lateral searches to identify studies reporting data on falls or fall related injuries. Searches were initially conducted in February 2011 and updated in November 2012 and October 2013; no date restrictions were applied. Studies were assessed for risk of bias. Due to heterogeneity results were not pooled but are reported narratively.
Results
Seventeen RCTs and four uncontrolled studies met the inclusion criteria; 11 involved single interventions and ten multifactorial. Evidence relating to fall reduction was inconsistent. Eight of 14 studies found a reduction in fallers (statistically significant in five), and nine of 14 reported a significant reduction in rate or number of falls. Four studies found a non-significant increase in falls. Multifactorial, multi-disciplinary interventions and those involving exercise, medication review and increasing staff awareness appear to reduce the risk of falls but evidence is mixed and study quality varied. Changes to the environment such as increased supervision or sensory stimulation to reduce agitation may be promising for people with dementia but further evaluation is needed. Most of the studies were undertaken in nursing and residential homes, and none in mental health hospital settings.
Conclusions
There is a dearth of falls research in mental health settings or which focus on patients with mental health problems despite the high number of falls experienced by this population group. This review highlights the lack of robust evidence to support practitioners to implement practices that prevent people with mental health problems from falling.
doi:10.1186/1472-6955-13-4
PMCID: PMC3942767  PMID: 24552165
Systematic review; Falls; Older people; Mental health
22.  The REFORM study protocol: a cohort randomised controlled trial of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for the prevention of falls in older people 
BMJ Open  2014;4(12):e006977.
Introduction
Falls and fall-related injuries are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to society. Foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falls; therefore podiatric interventions may play a role in reducing falls. Two Cochrane systematic reviews identified only one study of a podiatry intervention aimed to reduce falls, which was undertaken in Australia. The REFORM trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention in reducing falls in people aged 65 years and over in a UK and Irish setting.
Methods and analysis
This multicentre, cohort randomised controlled trial will recruit 2600 participants from routine podiatry clinics in the UK and Ireland to the REFORM cohort. In order to detect a 10% point reduction in falls from 50% to 40%, with 80% power 890 participants will be randomised to receive routine podiatry care and a falls prevention leaflet or routine podiatry care, a falls prevention leaflet and a multifaceted podiatry intervention. The primary outcome is rate of falls (falls/person/time) over 12 months assessed by patient self-report falls diary. Secondary self-report outcome measures include: the proportion of single and multiple fallers and time to first fall over a 12-month period; Short Falls Efficacy Scale—International; fear of falling in the past 4 weeks; Frenchay Activities Index; fracture rate; Geriatric Depression Scale; EuroQoL-five dimensional scale 3-L; health service utilisation at 6 and 12 months. A qualitative study will examine the acceptability of the package of care to participants and podiatrists.
Ethics and dissemination
The trial has received a favourable opinion from the East of England—Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee and Galway Research Ethics Committee. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conference presentations.
Trial registration number
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461assigned 01/07/2011.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006977
PMCID: PMC4275677  PMID: 25518875
HEALTH ECONOMICS; STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
23.  Multifactorial assessment and targeted intervention for preventing falls and injuries among older people in community and emergency care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;336(7636):130-133.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of multifactorial assessment and intervention programmes to prevent falls and injuries among older adults recruited to trials in primary care, community, or emergency care settings.
Design Systematic review of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, and meta-analysis.
Data sources Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index) to 22 March 2007, reference lists of included studies, and previous reviews.
Review methods Eligible studies were randomised or quasi-randomised trials that evaluated interventions to prevent falls that were based in emergency departments, primary care, or the community that assessed multiple risk factors for falling and provided or arranged for treatments to address these risk factors.
Data extraction Outcomes were number of fallers, fall related injuries, fall rate, death, admission to hospital, contacts with health services, move to institutional care, physical activity, and quality of life. Methodological quality assessment included allocation concealment, blinding, losses and exclusions, intention to treat analysis, and reliability of outcome measurement.
Results 19 studies, of variable methodological quality, were included. The combined risk ratio for the number of fallers during follow-up among 18 trials was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.02) and for fall related injuries (eight trials) was 0.90 (0.68 to 1.20). No differences were found in admissions to hospital, emergency department attendance, death, or move to institutional care. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of different effects between interventions in different locations, populations selected for high risk of falls or unselected, and multidisciplinary teams including a doctor, but interventions that actively provide treatments may be more effective than those that provide only knowledge and referral.
Conclusions Evidence that multifactorial fall prevention programmes in primary care, community, or emergency care settings are effective in reducing the number of fallers or fall related injuries is limited. Data were insufficient to assess fall and injury rates.
doi:10.1136/bmj.39412.525243.BE
PMCID: PMC2206297  PMID: 18089892
24.  Contact Sport Concussion Incidence 
Journal of Athletic Training  2006;41(4):470-472.
Reference/Citation: Koh JO, Cassidy JD, Watkinson EJ. Incidence of concussion in contact sports: a systematic review of the evidence. Brain Inj.20031790191712963556.
Clinical Question: What is the incidence of concussion in various contact sports?
Data Sources: Studies for the review were found through a MEDLINE search (1985–2000) and by gathering and reviewing older articles referenced in the searched articles. The main terms that were included in the search were brain injuries, brain concussion, and incidence. Text words that were also included were mild traumatic brain injury, concussion, incidence, injury, and head injury, along with the names of 8 contact sports ( American football, boxing, ice hockey, judo, karate, tae kwon do, rugby, and soccer).
Study Selection: For this review, concussion was defined as “a mild brain injury resulting from a direct blow to the head resulting in physiological changes in brain function.” Cohort studies with documented incidence of concussion in athletes from 8 identified contact sports were the target of the search. All studies of male and female athletes in any of the 8 contact sports, including practices and games and regardless of level of competition, were included in the study search. Possible articles for review were identified through a 3-step screening process. Article titles were initially screened by one of the authors. If the title seemed to be relevant to the purpose of the review, the abstract of the article was then screened for inclusion/exclusion criteria as the second step. To be included, studies had to relate to the incidence of injury to the head and brain, report results relevant to concussion, involve 1 of the 8 identified contact sports, and be published between 1985 and 2000. All systematic reviews about mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) or concussion were also included. Studies were excluded if they discussed concussion due to whiplash injury or concussion associated with spinal cord injury, facial bone fracture, or soft tissue injuries; if they reported prevalence, rather than incidence, of concussion; if they addressed chronic TBI; if they comprised case reports or letters to the editor; or if they lacked a denominator to determine risk rates. Finally, relevant and unknown articles from the abstract screening were reviewed again for the inclusion and exclusion criteria by an independent, outside party.
Data Extraction: A general methodologic criteria design was used to critically appraise all articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This design appraised 11 study design and reporting criteria. In order for an article to be accepted into the systematic review, it had to meet at least the 5 mandatory criteria: description of the source population, appropriate description of inclusion and exclusion criteria, verifiable results from the raw data, differentiation of the incidence of injury between practice and game settings, and adequately measured denominator of population or person-time at risk. For each individual study, the 5 mandatory criteria listed above were rated with regard to whether they were included or addressed in the paper ( yes), were missing from the paper ( no), or were included but not described fully or in a way characterized by sound quality ( substandard). If any of the 5 mandatory criteria were rated no, the article was not evaluated any further. Data taken from these articles included sex, types of sessions in which concussion occurred, and numbers defining incidence of concussion within a contact sport. In some studies, rates were recalculated from the raw data in order to check accuracy, or if they were not presented in the published material, rates were calculated. These rates were recalculated with the denominator presented in the original study, athletes at risk for injury or time at risk for injury. Athlete-exposure was not defined in the review but is commonly used as the denominator in epidemiologic studies and represents one time in which an athlete takes part in a game or practice that exposes him or her to a risk for injury.
Main Results: The overall search identified 559 publications with possible relevance to the incidence of concussion in contact sports. After the titles were screened, 213 articles remained, and their abstracts were reviewed. The abstract screening for relevance yielded 127 articles to which the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The investigators then critically reviewed 63 articles that fit the inclusion criteria. During this critical review, 40 articles did not meet the 5 mandatory criteria listed above and were not evaluated further. After final screening, 23 articles were included in the study. Review of these 23 articles revealed that among team sports for high school males, ice hockey athletes demonstrated the highest incidence of concussion (3.6 per 1000 athlete-exposures [AEs], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.99–9.29) and soccer athletes the lowest incidence of concussion (0.18 per 1000 AEs, 95% CI = 0.14–0.22). At the professional level, similar concussion incidence rates were found in both ice hockey (6.5 per 1000 player-games, 95% CI = 4.8–8.6) and rugby (9.05 per 1000 player-games, 95% CI = 4.1–17.1) players. When compared with other individual male sports (karate and tae kwon do), boxing had the highest incidence of concussion in professional (0.8 per 10 rounds, 95% CI = 0.75–0.95) and amateur (7.9 per 1000 man-minutes, 95% CI = 5.45–11.09) athletes. Only 6 included studies (5 dealing with tae kwon do and 1 with soccer) addressed concussion incidence in females. Tae kwon do had the highest incidence of concussion (8.77 per 1000 AEs, 95% CI = 0.22–47.9).
Conclusions: The information presented in the article offers helpful insight into the rate of concussion in athletes from 8 contact sports. Ice hockey seemed to have the greatest incidence of concussion for males, whereas tae kwon do had the highest incidence rate for females. Relatively few rigorous epidemiologic studies on the incidence of concussion exist. Specifically, 63% of the identified studies did not meet the methodologic criteria to be included in this systematic review. In addition, limited information exists on the risk of concussion for females in contact sports. Future authors should address the limitations in reporting incidences, including the lack of adequately measured denominators (person-time at risk), vague definitions of concussion, combining game and practice injuries, and history of concussive injury. Future researchers should also include at least the 5 mandatory methodologic criteria used in the critical appraisal of articles for this review to allow for better reporting of concussion incidence and comparison among various studies. Concussion incidence in females should also be explored.
PMCID: PMC1748409  PMID: 17273475
head injury; brain injury; epidemiology
25.  Prevention of fall incidents in patients with a high risk of falling: design of a randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation of the effect of multidisciplinary transmural care 
BMC Geriatrics  2007;7:15.
Background
Annually, about 30% of the persons of 65 years and older falls at least once and 15% falls at least twice. Falls often result in serious injuries, such as fractures. Therefore, the prevention of accidental falls is necessary. The aim is to describe the design of a study that evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary assessment and treatment of multiple fall risk factors in independently living older persons with a high risk of falling.
Methods/Design
The study is designed as a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an economic evaluation. Independently living persons of 65 years and older who recently experienced a fall are interviewed in their homes and screened for risk of recurrent falling using a validated fall risk profile. Persons at low risk of recurrent falling are excluded from the RCT. Persons who have a high risk of recurrent falling are blindly randomised into an intervention (n = 100) or usual care (n = 100) group. The intervention consists of a multidisciplinary assessment and treatment of multifactorial fall risk factors. The transmural multidisciplinary appraoch entails close cooperation between geriatrician, primary care physician, physical therapist and occupational therapist and can be extended with other specialists if relevant. A fall calendar is used to record falls during one year of follow-up. Primary outcomes are time to first and second falls. Three, six and twelve months after the home visit, questionnaires for economic evaluation are completed. After one year, during a second home visit, the secondary outcome measures are reassessed and the adherence to the interventions is evaluated. Data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle and also an on-treatment analysis will be performed.
Discussion
Strengths of this study are the selection of persons at high risk of recurrent falling followed by a multidisciplinary intervention, its transmural character and the evaluation of adherence. If proven effective, implementation of our multidisciplinary assessment followed by treatment of fall risk factors will reduce the incidence of falls.
Trial registration
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11546541.
doi:10.1186/1471-2318-7-15
PMCID: PMC1933430  PMID: 17605771

Results 1-25 (1486536)