↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic validity of the STRATIFY and Downton instruments for evaluating the risk of falls by hospitalised acute-care patients: a multicentre longitudinal study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic validity of the STRATIFY and Downton instruments for evaluating the risk of falls by hospitalised acute-care patients: a multicentre longitudinal study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2214-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta Aranda-Gallardo, Margarita Enriquez de Luna-Rodriguez, Maria J. Vazquez-Blanco, Jose C. Canca-Sanchez, Ana B. Moya-Suarez, Jose M. Morales-Asencio

Abstract

Falls are major adverse events in hospitals. The appropriateness of using risk assessment instruments for falls in hospitals has recently been questioned, although the research performed in this respect presents some methodological shortcomings. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the accuracy of the Downton and STRATIFY instruments to determine the risk of falls and to predict their incidence in acute care hospitals in the public health system in Andalusia (Spain). A longitudinal, multicentre prospective study was made of a cohort of patients recruited between May 2014 and March 2016. The risk of falls was assessed using each of the above instruments during the first 24 h after hospital admittance, with later re-evaluations every 72 h until discharge. Descriptive statistics were obtained, bivariate and multivariate analysis were performed. The diagnostic validity of the process was assessed by calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and ratios of positive and negative likelihood. ROC curve analysis was performed for both instruments. For this study, 1247 patients were recruited, of whom 977 completed all the follow-up assessments. Twenty-three of these patients (2.35%) suffered 24 falls. ROC curve analysis showed that the optimal cut-off point for each assessment instrument was below that described by the authors: AUC STRATIFY = 0.69 (95% CI: 0.57-0.8); AUC Downton = 0.6 (95% CI: 0.48-0.72). With a cut-off point of 1, the sensitivity of STRATIFY was 47.6% and its specificity, 85%. With a cut-off point of 2, Downton presented a sensitivity of 66.7% and a specificity of 55.3%. The Downton and STRATIFY falls risk assessment instruments presented little utility as means of detecting the risk of falls among a sample of adult patients admitted to acute care hospitals. Fall prevention in hospitals should be based on the study of individual risk factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 26 26%
Unknown 25 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 38 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Engineering 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 31 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,651,998
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,457
of 7,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,314
of 310,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#49
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.