A systematic review of fall prediction models for community-dwelling older adults: comparison between models based on research cohorts and models based on routinely collected data

Abstract

Background: Prediction models can identify fall-prone individuals. Prediction models can be based on either data from research cohorts (cohort-based) or routinely collected data (RCD-based). We review and compare cohort-based and RCD-based studies describing the development and/or validation of fall prediction models for community-dwelling older adults.

Methods: Medline and Embase were searched via Ovid until January 2023. We included studies describing the development or validation of multivariable prediction models of falls in older adults (60+). Both risk of bias and reporting quality were assessed using the PROBAST and TRIPOD, respectively.

Results: We included and reviewed 28 relevant studies, describing 30 prediction models (23 cohort-based and 7 RCD-based), and external validation of two existing models (one cohort-based and one RCD-based). The median sample sizes for cohort-based and RCD-based studies were 1365 [interquartile range (IQR) 426-2766] versus 90 441 (IQR 56 442-128 157), and the ranges of fall rates were 5.4% to 60.4% versus 1.6% to 13.1%, respectively. Discrimination performance was comparable between cohort-based and RCD-based models, with the respective area under the receiver operating characteristic curves ranging from 0.65 to 0.88 versus 0.71 to 0.81. The median number of predictors in cohort-based final models was 6 (IQR 5-11); for RCD-based models, it was 16 (IQR 11-26). All but one cohort-based model had high bias risks, primarily due to deficiencies in statistical analysis and outcome determination.

Conclusions: Cohort-based models to predict falls in older adults in the community are plentiful. RCD-based models are yet in their infancy but provide comparable predictive performance with no additional data collection efforts. Future studies should focus on methodological and reporting quality.

Keywords: accidental falls; electronic health records; geriatric medicine; older people; prediction models; prospective cohorts; risk stratification tools; routinely collected data; systematic review.

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection process.

Figure 2

Overview of the proportion of final models containing specific category of predictors.

Figure 3

Risk of bias and applicability of the included developed models.

Figure 4

Heatmap of the scored signalling questions of the risk-of-bias assessment PROBAST. ^*External validation study of one model.