Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.3414/ME13-01-0127
A Probabilistic Model to Investigate the Properties of Prognostic Tools for Falls[*]
Publication History
received:
25 November 2013
accepted:
25 June 2014
Publication Date:
22 January 2018 (online)

Summary
Background: Falls are a prevalent and burdensome problem in the elderly. Tools for the assessment of fall risk are fundamental for fall prevention. Clinical studies for the development and evaluation of prognostic tools for falls show high heterogeneity in the settings and in the reported results. Newly developed tools are susceptible to over- optimism.
Objectives: This study proposes a probabilistic model to address critical issues about fall prediction through the analysis of the properties of an ideal prognostic tool for falls.
Methods: The model assumes that falls occur within a population according to the Greenwood and Yule scheme for accident-proneness. Parameters for the fall rate distribution are estimated from counts of falls of four different epidemiological studies.
Results: We obtained analytic formulas and quantitative estimates for the predictive and discriminative properties of the ideal prognostic tool. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) ranges between about 0.80 and 0.89 when prediction on any fall is made within a follow-up of one year. Predicting on multiple falls results in higher AUC.
Conclusions: The discriminative ability of current validated prognostic tools for falls is sensibly lower than what the proposed ideal perfect tool achieves. A sensitivity analysis of the predictive and discriminative properties of the tool with respect to study settings and fall rate distribution identifies major factors that can account for the high heterogeneity of results observed in the literature.
* Supplementary material published on our web-site www.methods-online.com
-
References
- 1 World Health Organization. WHO global report on falls prevention in older age. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2007
- 2 Rubenstein LZ. Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for preven- tion. Age Ageing 2006; 35 (Suppl. 02) Suppl ii37-ii41. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16926202 Accessed 2012; 7-13.
- 3 Lord SR, Menz HB, Tiedemann A. A physiological profile approach to falls risk assessment and prevention. Phys Ther 2003; 83 (03) 237-252. http:// ptjournal.apta.org/content/83/3/237.full.
- 4 Tiedemann A, Lord SR, Sherrington C. The development and validation of a brief performance-based fall risk assessment tool for use in primary care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2010; 65 (08) 896-903. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 20522529.
- 5 Hernandez D, Rose DJ. Predicting which older adults will or will not fall using the Fullerton Advanced Balance scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89 (012) 2309-2315. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18976981.
- 6 Oliver D, Papaioannou A, Giangregorio L, Thabane L, Reizgys K, Foster G. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the STRATIFY tool for prediction of falls in hospital patients: how well does it work?. Age Ageing 2008; 37 (06) 621-627. http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/6/621.
- 7 Scott V, Votova K, Scanlan A, Close J. Multifactorial and functional mobility assessment tools for fall risk among older adults in community, home-support, long-term and acute care settings. Age Ageing 2007; 36: 130-139.
- 8 Altman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model?. Stat Med 2000; 19 (04) 453-473. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 10694730.
- 9 Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KGM. Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 2009; 338: 1432-1435.
- 10 Billington J, Fahey T, Galvin R. Diagnostic accuracy of the STRATIFY clinical prediction rule for falls: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Fam. Pract. 2012; 13 (01) 76 http://www. biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/13/76.
- 11 Gates S, Smith LA, Fisher JD, Lamb SE. System-atic review of accuracy of screening instru- ments for predicting fall risk among independently living older adults. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008; 45 (08) 1105-1116. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19235113.
- 12 Muir SW, Berg K, Chesworth B, Klar N, Speechley M. Quantifying the magnitude of risk for balance impairment on falls in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (04) 389-406. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.010.
- 13 Gail MH, Pfeiffer RM. On criteria for evaluating models of absolute risk. Biostatistics 2005; 6 (02) 227-239. http://biostatistics.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/2/227 abstract.
- 14 Diamond G. What price perfection? Calibration and discrimination of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45 (01) 85-89.
- 15 Cook NR. Statistical evaluation of prognostic versus diagnostic models: beyond the ROC curve. Clin Chem 2008; 54 (01) 17-23. http://www. clinchem.org/content/54/1/17.full.
- 16 Cook NR. Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 2007; 115 (07) 928-935. http://circ. ahajournals.org/content/115/7/928.long.
- 17 Howcroft J, Kofman J, Lemaire ED. Review of fall risk assessment in geriatric populations using inertial sensors. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2013; 10 (01) 91 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23927446.
- 18 Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS. Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics 2000; 56 (02) 337-344. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10877287.
- 19 Marschollek M, Rehwald a, Wolf KH, Gietzelt M, Nemitz G, Meyer Zu Schwabedissen H, Haux R. Sensor-based fall risk assessment - an expert “to go”. Methods Inf Med 2011; 50 (05) 420-426. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21206963.
- 20 Stalenhoef PA, Diederiks JPM, Knottnerus JA, Kester ADM, Crebolder HFJM. A risk model for the prediction of recurrent falls in community-dwelling elderly: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55 (011) 1088-1094. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12507672.
- 21 Ullah S, Finch CF, Day L. Statistical modelling for falls count data. Accid Anal Prev 2010; 42 (02) 384-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.08. 018.
- 22 Feller W. On a General Class of “Contagious” Distributions. Ann Math Stat 1943; 14 (04) 389-400.
- 23 Johnson NL, Kotz S, Kemp AW. Univariate discrete distributions. Second ed. New York: Wiley: 1992
- 24 Greenwood M, Yule GU. An Inquiry into the Nature of Frequency Distributions Representative of Multiple Happenings with Particular Reference to the Occurrence of Multiple Attacks of Disease or of Repeated Accidents. J R Stat Soc 1920; 83 (02) 255-279.
- 25 Metz CE. Basic Principles of ROC Analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978; VIII (04) 283-298.
- 26 Deandrea S, Lucenteforte E, Bravi F, Foschi R, La Vecchia C, Negri E. Risk Factors for Falls in Community-dwelling Older People: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2010; 21 (05) 658-668.
- 27 R Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.. 2013 http://www.r-project.org.
- 28 MATLAB and Simulink for Technical Comput- ing - MathWorks Italia. [date unknown]. http:// www.mathworks.it/.
- 29 Haines TP, Hill K, Walsh W, Osborne R. Design-Related Bias in Hospital Fall Risk Screening Tool Predictive Accuracy Evaluations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Gerontol Med Sci 2007; 62 (06) A664-672.
- 30 Oliver D, Britton M, Seed P, Martin FC, Hopper a H. Development and evaluation of evidence based risk assessment tool (STRATIFY) to predict which elderly inpatients will fall: case-control and cohort studies. BMJ 1997; 315 7115 1049-1053. http:// www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi? artid=2127684&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype= abstract.
- 31 Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The elements of statistical learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Second ed. Springer; 2009
- 32 Nevitt MC, Cummings SR, Kidd S, Black D. Risk factors for recurrent nonsyncopal falls. A prospective study. JAMA 1989; 261 (018) 2663-2668. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2709546.
- 33 Papoulis A. Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991
- 34 Hsu HP. Theory and Problems of Probability, Random Variables, and Random Processes. Italian ed. McGraw-Hill. 2011
- 35 Xekalaki E. The univariate generalized Waring distribution in relation to accident theory: proneness, spells or contagion?. Biometrics 1983; 39 (04) 887-895.
- 36 Navarro A, Ancizu I. Analyzing the occurrence of falls and its risk factors: some considerations. Prev Med (Baltim) 2009; 48 (03) 298-302. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19168092.
- 37 Robertson MC, Campbell AJ, Herbison P. Statistical analysis of efficacy in falls prevention trials. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2005; 60 (04) 530-534. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15933397.
- 38 Karlis D, Xekalaki E. Mixed Poisson Distributions. Int Stat Rev 2005; 73 (01) 35-58. http://doi. wiley.com/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2005.tb00250.x.