↓ Skip to main content

A two-question tool to assess the risk of repeated falls in the elderly

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A two-question tool to assess the risk of repeated falls in the elderly
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0176703
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Older adults' perception of their own risk of fall has never been included into screening tools. The goal of this study was to evaluate the predictive validity of questions on subjects' self-perception of their own risk of fall. This prospective study was conducted on a probabilistic sample of 772 Spanish community-dwelling older adults, who were followed-up for a one year period. At a baseline visit, subjects were asked about their recent history of falls (question 1: "Have you fallen in the last 6 months?"), as well as on their perception of their own risk of fall by using two questions (question 2: "Do you think you may fall in the next few months?" possible answers: yes/no; question 3: "What is the probability that you fall in the next few months?" possible answers: low/intermediate/high). The follow-up consisted of quarterly telephone calls, where the number of falls occurred in that period was recorded. A short questionnaire built with questions 1 and 3 showed 70% sensitivity (95% CI: 56%-84%), 72% specificity (95% CI: 68%-76%) and 0.74 area under the ROC curve (95% CI: 0.66-0.82) for prediction of repeated falls in the subsequent year. The estimation of one's own risk of fall has predictive validity for the occurrence of repeated falls in older adults. A short questionnaire including a question on perception of one's own risk of fall and a question on the recent history of falls had good predictive validity.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Other 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 28 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 30 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 18 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,380,638
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#30,261
of 195,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,775
of 310,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#680
of 4,389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 310,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,389 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.