Search

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30 per cent of people over 65 years of age and living in the community fall each year; the number is higher in institutions. Although less than one fall in 10 results in a fracture, a fifth of fall incidents require medical attention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to reduce the incidence of falls in elderly people (living in the community, or in institutional or hospital care). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (January 2003), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2003), EMBASE (1988 to 2003 Week 19), CINAHL (1982 to April 2003), The National Research Register, Issue 2, 2003, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com accessed 11 July 2003) and reference lists of articles. No language restrictions were applied. Further trials were identified by contact with researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of interventions designed to minimise the effect of, or exposure to, risk factors for falling in elderly people. Main outcomes of interest were the number of fallers, or falls. Trials reporting only intermediate outcomes were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were pooled using the fixed effect model where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty two trials involving 21,668 people were included.Interventions likely to be beneficial:Multidisciplinary, multifactorial, health/environmental risk factor screening/intervention programmes in the community both for an unselected population of older people (4 trials, 1651 participants, pooled RR 0.73, 95%CI 0.63 to 0.85), and for older people with a history of falling or selected because of known risk factors (5 trials, 1176 participants, pooled RR 0.86, 95%CI 0.76 to 0.98), and in residential care facilities (1 trial, 439 participants, cluster-adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.60, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.73) A programme of muscle strengthening and balance retraining, individually prescribed at home by a trained health professional (3 trials, 566 participants, pooled relative risk (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.66 to 0.98) Home hazard assessment and modification that is professionally prescribed for older people with a history of falling (3 trials, 374 participants, RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.81) Withdrawal of psychotropic medication (1 trial, 93 participants, relative hazard 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.74) Cardiac pacing for fallers with cardioinhibitory carotid sinus hypersensitivity (1 trial, 175 participants, WMD -5.20, 95%CI -9.40 to -1.00) A 15 week Tai Chi group exercise intervention (1 trial, 200 participants, risk ratio 0.51, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.73). Interventions of unknown effectiveness:Group-delivered exercise interventions (9 trials, 1387 participants) Individual lower limb strength training (1 trial, 222 participants) Nutritional supplementation (1 trial, 46 participants) Vitamin D supplementation, with or without calcium (3 trials, 461 participants) Home hazard modification in association with advice on optimising medication (1 trial, 658 participants), or in association with an education package on exercise and reducing fall risk (1 trial, 3182 participants) Pharmacological therapy (raubasine-dihydroergocristine, 1 trial, 95 participants) Interventions using a cognitive/behavioural approach alone (2 trials, 145 participants) Home hazard modification for older people without a history of falling (1 trial, 530 participants) Hormone replacement therapy (1 trial, 116 participants) Correction of visual deficiency (1 trial, 276 participants).Interventions unlikely to be beneficial:Brisk walking in women with an upper limb fracture in the previous two years (1 trial, 165 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to prevent falls that are likely to be effective are now available; less is known about their effectiveness in preventing fall-related injuries. Costs per fall prevented have been established for four of the interventions and careful economic modelling in the context of the local healthcare system is important. Some potential interventions are of unknown effectiveness and further research is indicated.

Background In acute asthma inhaled β2-agonists are often administered to relieve bronchospasm by wet nebulisation, but some have argued that metered-dose inhalers with a holding chamber (spacer) can be equally effective. Nebulisers require a power source and need regular maintenance, and are more expensive in the community setting. Objectives To assess the effects of holding chambers (spacers) compared to nebulisers for the delivery of s2-agonists for acute asthma. Search strategy We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in January 2006 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2005). Selection criteria Randomised trials in adults and children (from two years of age) with asthma, where spacer s2-agonist delivery was compared with wet nebulisation. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently applied study inclusion criteria (one reviewer for the first version of the review), extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Missing data were obtained from the authors or estimated. Results are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results This review has been updated in January 2006 and four new trials have been added. 2066 children and 614 adults are now included in 25 trials from emergency room and community settings. In addition, six trials on in-patients with acute asthma (213 children and 28 adults) have been reviewed. Method of delivery of s2-agonist did not appear to affect hospital admission rates. In adults, the relative risk of admission for spacer versus nebuliser was 0.97 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.49). The relative risk for children was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.4 to 1.06). In children, length of stay in the emergency department was significantly shorter when the spacer was used, with a mean difference of -0.47 hours (95% CI: -0.58 to -0.37). Length of stay in the emergency department for adults was similar for the two delivery methods. Peak flow and forced expiratory volume were also similar for the two delivery methods. Pulse rate was lower for spacer in children, mean difference -7.6% baseline (95% CI: -9.9 to -5.3% baseline). Authors' conclusions Metered-dose inhalers with spacer produced outcomes that were at least equivalent to nebuliser delivery. Spacers may have some advantages compared to nebulisers for children with acute asthma. Plain language summary Spacers (holding chambers) can be as effective as nebulisers for delivering β2-agonist drugs to relieve acute asthma. In acute asthma attacks higher doses of inhaled β2-agonists (reliever inhalers) are used to overcome the narrowing of the passages in the lungs. The medication can be given by wet nebulisation or from an inhaler with a spacer device (holding chamber). This review now includes in-patient studies, as well as those in casualty and community setting, comparing these two delivery methods in acute asthma attacks. In adults, no important differences were found between the two methods, whilst in children those randomised to wet nebulisation spent longer in casualty. Metered-dose inhalers with a spacer can perform at least as well as wet nebulisation in delivering β2-agonists in acute asthma.

Vertebral collapse is one of the most common fractures associated with osteoporosis. The subsequent back pain is severe and often requires medications, bed rest and hospitalization to control pain and improve mobilization. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effects of calcitonin versus placebo for the treatment of acute pain in patients sustaining stable, recent, osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. MEDLINE (1966-2003), EMBASE (1980-2003), Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry (2003, volume 3), other databases, and conference proceedings were searched for relevant research. Primary study authors and the pharmaceutical manufacturer were contacted, and bibliographies of relevant papers were hand-searched. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials comparing calcitonin versus placebo for the acute pain of recent osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures were included. Two reviewers extracted data, performed numeric calculations and extrapolated graphical data independently. The combined results from five randomized controlled trials, involving 246 patients, determined that calcitonin significantly reduced the severity of pain using a visual analogue scale following diagnosis. Pain at rest was reduced as early as 1 week into treatment (weighted mean difference [WMD] =3.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.64, 3.52) and this effect continued weekly to 4 weeks (WMD =4.03; 95% CI: 3.70, 4.35). A similar pattern was seen for pain scores associated with sitting, standing, and walking. Side effects were gastrointestinal, minor and often self-limited. Calcitonin appears to be effective in the management of acute pain associated with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures by shortening time to mobilization.