↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Simple Versus Performance-Based Fall Prediction Models

Overview of attention for article published in Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Comparison of Simple Versus Performance-Based Fall Prediction Models
Published in
Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1177/2333721415584850
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To compare the predictive ability of standard falls prediction models based on physical performance assessments with more parsimonious prediction models based on self-reported data. We developed a series of fall prediction models progressing in complexity and compared area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) across models. National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), which surveyed a nationally-representative sample of Medicare enrollees (age ≥65) at baseline (Round 1: 2011-12) and one-year follow-up (Round 2: 2012-3). 6056 community-dwelling individuals who participated in Rounds 1 and 2 of NHATS. Primary outcomes were one-year incidence of "any fall" and "recurrent falls". Prediction models were compared and validated in development and validation sets, respectively. A prediction model that included demographic information, self-reported problems with balance and coordination, and previous fall history was the most parsimonious model that optimized AUC for both any fall (AUC=0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.71) and recurrent falls (AUC=0.77, 95% CI 0.74-0.79) in the development set. Physical performance testing provided marginal additional predictive value. A simple clinical prediction model that does not include physical performance testing could facilitate routine, widespread falls risk screening in the ambulatory care setting.

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 2 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 13 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 %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 31%
Engineering 2 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Psychology 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 December 2015.
All research outputs
#19,278,865
of 29,592,026 outputs
Outputs from Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine
#354
of 579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,004
of 285,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,592,026 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 285,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.