↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the relationship between fall risk-increasing drugs and fall-related fractures

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
Exploring the relationship between fall risk-increasing drugs and fall-related fractures
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11096-015-0230-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabrina De Winter, Sarah Vanwynsberghe, Veerle Foulon, Eddy Dejaeger, Johan Flamaing, An Sermon, Lorenz Van der Linden, Isabel Spriet

Abstract

Hospital admissions due to fall-related fractures are a major problem in the aging population. Several risk factors have been identified, including drug use. Most studies often retrieved prescription-only drugs from national databases. These are associated with some limitations as they do not always reliably reproduce the complete patient's active drug list. To evaluate the association between the number of FRIDs intake identified by a standardised medication reconciliation process and a fall-related fracture leading to a hospital admission in older adults. The first cohort has been recruited from one traumatology ward of a tertiary teaching hospital in Belgium and the second cohort has been recruited from 11 community pharmacies in Belgium. A prospective study with two individually matched cohorts was performed. Adult patients (≥75 years) admitted with an injury due to a fall were included in the first cohort (faller group). The second cohort consisted of patients who did not suffer from a fall within the last 6 months (non-faller group). Matching was performed for age, gender, place of residence and use of a walking aid. In both groups, clinical pharmacists and undergraduate pharmacy students obtained the medication history, using a standardised approach. A list of drugs considered to increase the risk of falling was created. It included cardiovascular drugs and drugs acting on the nervous system. A linear mixed model was used to compare the number of fall risk-increasing drugs between fallers and non-fallers. The number of fall risk-increasing drugs in a faller versus a non-faller group. Sixty-one patients were matched with 121 non-fallers. Patients received on average 3.1 ± 2.1 and 3.2 ± 1.8 fall risk-increasing drugs in the faller and in the non-faller group, respectively. The mean number of fall risk-increasing drugs was comparable in both groups (p = 0.844), even after adjusting for alcohol consumption, fear of falling, vision and foot problems (p = 0.721). In a sample of hospitalised patients admitted for a fall-related injury, no significant difference in the number of fall risk-increasing drugs versus that of an outpatient group of non-fallers was found.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 110 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 27 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 36 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,464,797
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#890
of 1,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,722
of 394,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#18
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 394,109 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.