SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Associations between doses of fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) and falls of hospitalized patients.

Sci Rep · 2023-09-01

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41568-6PMID: 37658229

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Falls are a serious public health problem in the aging population because of the associated clinical and socioeconomic impact. Although previous studies have investigated fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs), few studies have focused on dosage among adult inpatients. This study aimed to evaluate associations between fall risk and dosage of different FRIDs classes in hospital inpatients. Inpatients who experienced falls at medical or surgical wards of Changhua Christian Hospital from January 2017 to December 2021 were identified and matched by age, sex, and hospital ward to randomly selected controls (four per case). Anonymous patient data were extracted from the hospital medical data repository, including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, fall-risk scores, and drug prescriptions. Medication dosages were computed using the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification and the defined daily dose system of the World Health Organization. A total of 852 cases and 3408 controls were identified as eligible. Reducing the use of CNS-active medications, administering lower doses of sedative-hypnotics, prescribing sufficient dopaminergic anti-Parkinson agents, and using NSAIDs instead of opioids are imperative in preventing falls among hospitalized patients according to the findings in the study.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.