Search

Background: Falls in the inpatient stroke population are common, resulting in increased morbidity and slow rehabilitation progress. Falls may result from stroke‐specific neurologic deficits; however, assessment of these deficits is lacking in many fall screening tools. Objective: To compare the ability to predict falls of the Stroke Assessment of Fall Risk (SAFR) tool, which includes items related to stroke‐specific neurologic deficits, and the commonly used Morse Fall Scale, which does not include these items. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting: Inpatient tertiary stroke rehabilitation unit. Participants: Patients (N = 220) with acute stroke. Main Outcome Measures: Falls were captured by the medical records from January 2017 to September 2018. Logistic regression analysis evaluated both screening tools for predicting falls by calculating sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC‐ROC) curve, and odds ratio (OR). We compared SAFR and Morse mean scores between fallers and non‐fallers using t‐tests. Results: Forty‐eight (21.8%) patients experienced ≥1 fall. SAFR, but not Morse, scores showed a statistically significant difference between fallers and non‐fallers (P =.001 vs P =.24, respectively). Higher SAFR score was associated with higher odds of falls (OR 1.36, 95% CI [1.12, 1.64]), whereas Morse was not (OR 1.04, 95% CI [0.97, 1.12]). SAFR showed a statistically significant difference in hemi‐neglect between fallers and non‐fallers (P =.03). Sensitivity and specificity of SAFR were 47.9% and 76.7%, vs 45.8% and 68.0% for Morse, respectively. SAFR positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 36.5% and 84.1%, respectively, similar to Morse (28.6% and 81.8%). The AUC‐ROC was 0.65 for SAFR and 0.56 for Morse. Conclusions: SAFR was significantly associated with fall risk and had better discrimination between fallers and non‐fallers than Morse. The neurologic‐specific hemi‐neglect component of SAFR, a component not present on the Morse, was a fall risk factor. Further research evaluating the predictive value of fall scales that include neurologic deficits is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many patients with osteoarthritis (OA) develop restrictions in passive range of motion (ROM) of their affected joints (called contractures), leading to increased pain and reduced function. Effective treatment to reverse OA-associated contractures is lacking. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of stretching and bracing on native (non-operated) joint contractures in people with radiographically diagnosed OA. Methods and analysis: We will search the following databases without time restriction: Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SCI-EXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge) and PEDro. Other sources will include WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, reference lists of included studies, relevant systematic reviews and textbooks. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies and case-control studies that include participants =18 years of age with radiographic evidence of OA. Participants with inflammatory arthropathies or those that have undergone joint arthroplasty will be excluded. Interventions will include therapist-administered or patient-administered stretching, use of an orthosis (static or dynamic), use of serial casting and/or adjunctive modalities. Outcomes will include joint ROM (active and passive), pain (rest and/or activity related), stiffness, activity limitations, participation restrictions, quality of life and adverse events. Studies will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed using appropriate tools for each study design. Data synthesis will be performed using Cochrane Review Manager software. If sufficient data are available, meta-analysis will be conducted. We will summarise the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, and the effect size of interventions for RCT and non-RCT studies. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval not required because individual patient data are not included. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Falls in the inpatient stroke population are common, resulting in increased morbidity and slow rehabilitation progress. Falls may result from stroke-specific neurologic deficits; however, assessment of these deficits is lacking in many fall screening tools., Objective: To compare the ability to predict falls of the Stroke Assessment of Fall Risk (SAFR) tool, which includes items related to stroke-specific neurologic deficits, and the commonly used Morse Fall Scale, which does not include these items., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Inpatient tertiary stroke rehabilitation unit., Participants: Patients (N = 220) with acute stroke., Main Outcome Measures: Falls were captured by the medical records from January 2017 to September 2018. Logistic regression analysis evaluated both screening tools for predicting falls by calculating sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve, and odds ratio (OR). We compared SAFR and Morse mean scores between fallers and non-fallers using t-tests., Results: Forty-eight (21.8%) patients experienced ≥1 fall. SAFR, but not Morse, scores showed a statistically significant difference between fallers and non-fallers (P = .001 vs P = .24, respectively). Higher SAFR score was associated with higher odds of falls (OR 1.36, 95% CI [1.12, 1.64]), whereas Morse was not (OR 1.04, 95% CI [0.97, 1.12]). SAFR showed a statistically significant difference in hemi-neglect between fallers and non-fallers (P = .03). Sensitivity and specificity of SAFR were 47.9% and 76.7%, vs 45.8% and 68.0% for Morse, respectively. SAFR positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 36.5% and 84.1%, respectively, similar to Morse (28.6% and 81.8%). The AUC-ROC was 0.65 for SAFR and 0.56 for Morse., Conclusions: SAFR was significantly associated with fall risk and had better discrimination between fallers and non-fallers than Morse. The neurologic-specific hemi-neglect component of SAFR, a component not present on the Morse, was a fall risk factor. Further research evaluating the predictive value of fall scales that include neurologic deficits is needed., (© 2020 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.)