Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE--To examine the sensitivity and precision of Medline searching for randomised clinical trials. DESIGN--Comparison of results of Medline searches to a "gold standard" of known randomised clinical trials in ophthalmology published in 1988; systematic review (meta-analysis) of results of similar, but separate, studies from many fields of medicine. POPULATIONS--Randomised clinical trials published in 1988 in journals indexed in Medline, and those not indexed in Medline and identified by hand search, comprised the gold standard. Gold standards for the other studies combined in the meta-analysis were based on: randomised clinical trials published in any journal, whether indexed in Medline or not; those published in any journal indexed in Medline; or those published in a selected group of journals indexed in Medline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Sensitivity (proportion of the total number of known randomised clinical trials identified by the search) and precision (proportion of publications retrieved by Medline that were actually randomised clinical trials) were calculated for each study and combined to obtain weighted means. Searches producing the "best" sensitivity were used for sensitivity and precision estimates when multiple searches were performed. RESULTS--The sensitivity of searching for ophthalmology randomised clinical trials published in 1988 was 82%, when the gold standard was for any journal, 87% for any journal indexed in Medline, and 88% for selected journals indexed in Medline. Weighted means for sensitivity across all studies were 51%, 77%, and 63%, respectively. The weighted mean for precision was 8% (median 32.5%). Most searchers seemed not to use freetext subject terms and truncation of those terms. CONCLUSION--Although the indexing terms available for searching Medline for randomised clinical trials have improved, sensitivity still remains unsatisfactory. A mechanism is needed to "''register" known trials, preferably by retrospective tagging of Medline entries, and incorporating trials published before 1966 and in journals not indexed by Medline into the system.     

CONSORT Item Reporting Quality in the Top Ten Ranked Journals of Critical Care Medicine in 2011: A Retrospective Analysis

IntroductionReporting randomised controlled trials is a key element in order to disseminate research findings. The CONSORT statement was introduced to improve the reporting quality. We assessed the adherence to the CONSORT statement of randomised controlled trials published 2011 in the top ten ranked journals of critical care medicine (ISI Web of Knowledge 2011, Thomson Reuters, London UK).MethodsDesign. We performed a retrospective cross sectional data analysis. Setting. This study was executed at the University Hospital of RWTH, Aachen. Participants. We selected the following top ten listed journals according to ISI Web of Knowledge (Thomson Reuters, London, UK) critical care medicine ranking in the year 2011: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, Intensive Care Medicine, CHEST, Critical Care, Journal of Neurotrauma, Resuscitation, Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Shock and Minerva Anestesiologica. Main outcome measures. We screened the online table of contents of each included journal, to identify the randomised controlled trials. The adherence to the items of the CONSORT Checklist in each trial was evaluated. Additionally we correlated the citation frequency of the articles and the impact factor of the respective journal with the amount of reported items per trial.ResultsWe analysed 119 randomised controlled trials and found, 15 years after the implementation of the CONSORT statement, that a median of 61,1% of the checklist-items were reported. Only 55.5% of the articles were identified as randomised trials in their titles. The citation frequency of the trials correlated significantly (rs = 0,433; p<0,001 and r = 0,331; p<0,001) to the CONSORT statement adherence. The impact factor showed also a significant correlation to the CONSORT adherence (r = 0,386; p<0,001).ConclusionThe reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in the field of critical care medicine remains poor and needs considerable improvement.     

The effects of clinical practice guidelines on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence for the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in improving patient outcomes in primary care. DATA SOURCES: A search of the MEDLINE, HEALTHPLAN, CINAHL and FAMLI databases was conducted to identify studies published between Jan. 1, 1980, and Dec. 31, 1995, concerning the use of guidelines in primary medical care. The keywords used in the search were "clinical guidelines," "primary care," "clinical care," "intervention," "randomized controlled trial" and "effectiveness." STUDY SELECTION: Studies of the use of CPGs were selected if they involved a randomized experimental or quasi-experimental method, concerned primary care, were related to clinical care and examined patient outcomes. Of 91 trials of CPGs identified through the search, 13 met the criteria for inclusion in the critical appraisal. DATA EXTRACTION: The following data were extracted, when possible, from the 13 trials: country and setting, number of physicians, number of patients (and the proportion followed to completion), length of follow-up, study method (including random assignment method), type of intervention, medical condition treated and effect on patient outcomes (including clinical and statistical significance, with confidence intervals). DATA SYNTHESIS: The most common conditions studied were hypertension (7 studies), asthma (2 studies) and cigarette smoking (2 studies). Four of the studies followed nationally developed guidelines, and 9 used locally developed guidelines. Six studies involved computerized or automated reminder systems, whereas the others relied on small-group workshops and education sessions. Only 5 of the 13 trials (38%) produced statistically significant results. CONCLUSION: There is very little evidence that the use of CPGs improves patient outcomes in primary medical care, but most studies published to date have used older guidelines and methods, which may have been insensitive to small changes in outcomes. Research is needed to determine whether the newer, evidence-based CPGs have an effect on patient outcomes.     

Growth and development of biofeedback: a bibliographic analysis

A computerized search was performed, and a bibliography was prepared on the subject of biofeedback covering the years from 1964 to 1985. Growth curves were produced for various publication media. The search produced references to 2,431 journal articles, 102 books, 79 popular magazine articles, and 551 doctoral dissertations. The journal articles were sorted according to the country of publication, language, and primary topic of the journal. Citations were found from 35 countries, written in 18 languages. All the media studied showed a period of rapid growth during the early to middle 1970s, but there was a tendency for leveling off or slight decline during the early 1980s. Publication of articles in medical journals has shown the greatest growth, and more articles are published yearly in medical journals than in journals of any other discipline or all specialty journals combined. Publication in psychological journals has shown a decline since 1977. Dental, nursing, and educational journals have shown a low rate of publication of biofeedback articles, indicating little or no growth.     

Growth and development of biofeedback: A bibliographic analysis

A computerized search was performed, and a bibliography was prepared on the subject of biofeedback covering the years from 1964 to 1985. Growth curves were produced for various publication media. The search produced references to 2,431 journal articles, 102 books, 79 popular magazine articles, and 551 doctoral dissertations. The journal articles were sorted according to the country of publication, language, and primary topic of the journal. Citations were found from 35 countries, written in 18 languages. All the media studied showed a period of rapid growth during the early to middle 1970s, but there was a tendency for leveling off or slight decline during the early 1980s. Publication of articles in medical journals has shown the greatest growth, and more articles are published yearly in medical journals than in journals of any other discipline or all specialty journals combined. Publication in psychological journals has shown a decline since 1977. Dental, nursing, and educational journals have shown a low rate of publication of biofeedback articles, indicating little or no growth.We thank Ken Hartman for his assistance in performing this study.     

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) Prisons Project Study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

Many research-funding agencies now require open access to the results of research they have funded, and some also require that researchers make available the raw data generated from that research. Similarly, the journal Trials aims to address inadequate reporting in randomised controlled trials, and in order to fulfil this objective, the journal is working with the scientific and publishing communities to try to establish best practice for publishing raw data from clinical trials in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Common issues encountered when considering raw data for publication include patient privacy – unless explicit consent for publication is obtained – and ownership, but agreed-upon policies for tackling these concerns do not appear to be addressed in the guidance or mandates currently established. Potential next steps for journal editors and publishers, ethics committees, research-funding agencies, and researchers are proposed, and alternatives to journal publication, such as restricted access repositories, are outlined.     

Mixing Nulliparous and Multiparous Women in Randomised Controlled Trials of Preeclampsia Prevention Is Debatable: Evidence from a Systematic Review

Background

Nulliparity is a major risk factor of preeclampsia investigated in numerous trials of its prevention.

Objective

We aimed to assess whether these trials considered nulliparity in subject selection or analysis of results.

Search Strategy

01 April 2013 search of MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. 01 April 2013 search of trials registered in Clinicaltrials.gov.

Selection Criteria

Randomised controlled trials and metaanalyses of preeclampsia prevention with no restriction to period of publication or language. Metaanalyses were selected to fully identify relevant trials.

Data Collection and Analysis

One reader appraised each selected article/registered protocol using a pretested, standardized data abstraction form developed in a pilot test. For each article, he recorded whether both nulliparous and multiparous were included and, in case of mixed populations, whether randomisation was stratified, and whether subgroup analyses had been reported. For registered protocols, he only assessed whether it was planned to include mixed populations.

Main Results

88 randomised controlled trials were identified, representing 83,396 included women. In 58 of the 88 articles identified (65.9%), preeclampsia was the primary outcome. In 31 of these (53.4%), the investigation combined nulliparous and multiparous women; only two reports in 31 (6.5%) stated that randomisation was stratified on parity and only four (12.9%) described a subgroup analysis by parity. Of the 30 registered trials, 20 (66.6%) planned to include both nulliparous and multiparous women.

Conclusion

Parity is largely ignored in randomised controlled trials of preeclampsia prevention, which raises difficulties in interpreting the results.     

Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of duplicate data on estimates of efficacy. DESIGN: Systematic search for published full reports of randomised controlled trials investigating ondansetron''s effect on postoperative emesis. Abstracts were not considered. DATA SOURCES: Eighty four trials (11,980 patients receiving ondansetron) published between 1991 and September 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of duplicated trials and patient data. Estimation of antiemetic efficacy (prevention of emesis) of the most duplicated ondansetron regimen. Comparison between the efficacy of non-duplicated and duplicated data. RESULTS: Data from nine trials had been published in 14 further reports, duplicating data from 3335 patients receiving ondansetron; none used a clear cross reference. Intravenous ondansetron 4 mg versus placebo was investigated in 16 reports not subject to duplicate publication, three reports subject to duplicate publication, and six duplicates of those three reports. The number needed to treat to prevent vomiting within 24 hours was 9.5 (95% confidence interval 6.9 to 15) in the 16 non-duplicated reports and 3.9 (3.3 to 4.8) in the three reports which were duplicated (P < 0.00001). When these 19 were combined the number needed to treat was 6.4 (5.3 to 7.9). When all original and duplicate reports were combined (n = 25) the apparent number needed to treat improved to 4.9 (4.4 to 5.6). CONCLUSIONS: By searching systematically we found 17% of published full reports of randomised trials and 28% of the patient data were duplicated. Trials reporting greater treatment effect were significantly more likely to be duplicated. Inclusion of duplicated data in meta-analysis led to a 23% overestimation of ondansetron''s antiemetic efficacy.     

Quality of type 2 diabetes management in the states of the Co-operation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf: a systematic review

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a growing, worldwide public health concern. Recent growth has been particularly dramatic in the states of The Co-operation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC), and these and other developing economies are at particular risk. We aimed to systematically review the quality of control of type 2 diabetes in the GCC, and the nature and efficacy of interventions. We identified 27 published studies for review. Studies were identified by systematic database searches. Medline and Embase were searched separately (via Dialog and Ovid, respectively; 1950 to July 2010 (Medline), and 1947 to July 2010 (Embase)) on 15/07/2009. The search was updated on 08/07/2010. Terms such as diabetes mellitus, non-insulin-dependent, hyperglycemia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and Gulf States were used. Our search also included scanning reference lists, contacting experts and hand-searching key journals. Studies were judged against pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria, and where suitable for inclusion, data extraction/quality assessment was achieved using a specifically-designed tool. All studies wherein glycaemic-, blood pressure- and/or lipid- control were investigated (clinical and/or process outcomes) were eligible for inclusion. No limitations on publication type, publication status, study design or language of publication were imposed. We found the extent of control to be sub-optimal and relatively poor. Assessment of the efficacy of interventions was difficult due to lack of data, but suggestive that more widespread and controlled trial of secondary prevention strategies may have beneficial outcomes. We found no record of audited implementation of primary preventative strategies and anticipate that controlled trial of such strategies would also be useful.     

Trial Registration Numbers Are Underreported in Biomedical Publications

Context

Since September 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has required that randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are prospectively registered in a publicly accessible database. After registration, a trial registration number (TRN) is assigned to each RCT, which should make it easier to identify future publications and cross-check published results with associated registry entries, as long as the unique identification number is reported in the article.

Objective

Our primary objective was to evaluate the reporting of trial registration numbers in biomedical publications. Secondary objectives were to evaluate how many published RCTs had been registered and how many registered RCTs had resulted in a publication, using a sample of trials from the Netherlands Trials Register (NTR).

Design, Setting

Two different samples of RCTs were examined: 1) RCTs published in November 2010 in core clinical journals identified in MEDLINE; 2) RCTs registered in the NTR with a latest expected end date of 31 August 2008.

Results

Fifty-five percent (166/302) of the reports of RCTs found in MEDLINE and 60% (186/312) of the published reports of RCTs from the NTR cohort contained a TRN. In both samples, reporting of a TRN was more likely in RCTs published in ICMJE member journals as compared to non-ICMJE member journals (MEDLINE 58% vs. 45%; NTR: 70% vs. 49%). Thirty-nine percent of published RCTs in the MEDLINE sample appear not to have been registered, and 48% of RCTs registered in the NTR seemed not to have been published at least two years after the expected date for study completion.

Conclusion

Our results show that further promotion and implementation of trial registration and accurate reporting of TRN is still needed. This might be helped by inclusion of the TRN as an item on the CONSORT checklist.     

Transparency of Outcome Reporting and Trial Registration of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Background

Confidence that randomized controlled trial (RCT) results accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on proper trial conduct and the accuracy and completeness of published trial reports. The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) is the primary trials journal amongst American Psychological Association (APA) journals. The objectives of this study were to review RCTs recently published in JCCP to evaluate (1) adequacy of primary outcome analysis definitions; (2) registration status; and, (3) among registered trials, adequacy of outcome registrations. Additionally, we compared results from JCCP to findings from a recent study of top psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals.

Methods

Eligible RCTs were published in JCCP in 2013–2014. For each RCT, two investigators independently extracted data on (1) adequacy of outcome analysis definitions in the published report, (2) whether the RCT was registered prior to enrolling patients, and (3) adequacy of outcome registration.

Results

Of 70 RCTs reviewed, 12 (17.1%) adequately defined primary or secondary outcome analyses, whereas 58 (82.3%) had multiple primary outcome analyses without statistical adjustment or undefined outcome analyses. There were 39 (55.7%) registered trials. Only two trials registered prior to patient enrollment with a single primary outcome variable and time point of assessment. However, in one of the two trials, registered and published outcomes were discrepant. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome analysis declarations was significantly lower in JCCP (17.1% versus 32.9%; p = 0.029). The proportion of registered trials in JCCP (55.7%) was comparable to behavioral medicine journals (52.6%; p = 0.709).

Conclusions

The quality of published outcome analysis definitions and trial registrations in JCCP is suboptimal. Greater attention to proper trial registration and outcome analysis definition in published reports is needed.     

Timing and Completeness of Trial Results Posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and Published in Journals

Background

The US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act requires results from clinical trials of Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs to be posted at ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 y after trial completion. We compared the timing and completeness of results of drug trials posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals.

Methods and Findings

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on March 27, 2012, for randomized controlled trials of drugs with posted results. For a random sample of these trials, we searched PubMed for corresponding publications. Data were extracted independently from ClinicalTrials.gov and from the published articles for trials with results both posted and published. We assessed the time to first public posting or publishing of results and compared the completeness of results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov versus published in journal articles. Completeness was defined as the reporting of all key elements, according to three experts, for the flow of participants, efficacy results, adverse events, and serious adverse events (e.g., for adverse events, reporting of the number of adverse events per arm, without restriction to statistically significant differences between arms for all randomized patients or for those who received at least one treatment dose).From the 600 trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we randomly sampled 50% (n = 297) had no corresponding published article. For trials with both posted and published results (n = 202), the median time between primary completion date and first results publicly posted was 19 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 30 mo), and the median time between primary completion date and journal publication was 21 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 28 mo). Reporting was significantly more complete at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article for the flow of participants (64% versus 48% of trials, p<0.001), efficacy results (79% versus 69%, p = 0.02), adverse events (73% versus 45%, p<0.001), and serious adverse events (99% versus 63%, p<0.001).The main study limitation was that we considered only the publication describing the results for the primary outcomes.

Conclusions

Our results highlight the need to search ClinicalTrials.gov for both unpublished and published trials. Trial results, especially serious adverse events, are more completely reported at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving the quality of care.Data sources Relevant studies through Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases.Study selection Two reviewers independently extracted data on topics, participants, setting, study design, and outcomes.Data synthesis Of 1104 articles identified, 72 were included in the study. Twelve reports representing nine studies (including two randomised controlled trials) used a controlled design to measure the effects of the quality improvement collaborative intervention on care processes or outcomes of care. Systematic review of these nine studies showed moderate positive results. Seven studies (including one randomised controlled trial) reported an effect on some of the selected outcome measures. Two studies (including one randomised controlled trial) did not show any significant effect.Conclusions The evidence underlying quality improvement collaboratives is positive but limited and the effects cannot be predicted with great certainty. Considering that quality improvement collaboratives seem to play a key part in current strategies focused on accelerating improvement, but may have only modest effects on outcomes at best, further knowledge of the basic components effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and success factors is crucial to determine the value of quality improvement collaboratives.     

Associated Factors and Consequences of Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Yoga: A Systematic Review

Background

Bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complementary therapy interventions seems to be associated with specific factors and to potentially distort the studies’ conclusions. This systematic review assessed associated factors of risk of bias and consequences for the studies’ conclusions in RCTs of yoga as one of the most commonly used complementary therapies.

Methods

Medline/PubMed, Scopus, IndMED and the Cochrane Library were searched through February 2014 for yoga RCTs. Risk of selection bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and regressed to a) publication year; b) country of origin; c) journal type; and d) impact factor using multiple logistic regression analysis. Likewise, the authors’ conclusions were regressed to risk of bias.

Results

A total of 312 RCTs were included. Impact factor ranged from 0.0 to 39.2 (median = 1.3); 60 RCT (19.2%) had a low risk of selection bias, and 252 (80.8%) had a high or unclear risk of selection bias. Only publication year and impact factor significantly predicted low risk of bias; RCTs published after 2001 (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 12.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.7, 94.0; p<0.001) and those published in journals with impact factor (adjusted OR = 2.6; 95%CI = 1.4, 4.9; p = 0.004) were more likely to have low risk of bias. The authors’ conclusions were not associated with risk of bias.

Conclusions

Risk of selection bias was generally high in RCTs of yoga; although the situation has improved since the publication of the revised CONSORT statement 2001. Pre-CONSORT RCTs and those published in journals without impact factor should be handled with increased care; although risk of bias is unlikely to distort the RCTs’ conclusions.     

A systematic review of compression treatment for venous leg ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and cost effectiveness of compression systems for treating venous leg ulcers. METHODS: Systematic review of research. Search of 19 electronic databases including Medline, CINAHL, and Embase. Relevant journals and conference proceedings were hand searched and experts were consulted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of healing and proportion of ulcers healed within a time period. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials, published or unpublished, with no restriction on date or language, that evaluated compression as a treatment for venous leg ulcers. RESULTS: 24 randomised controlled trials were included in the review. The research evidence was quite weak: many trials had inadequate sample size and generally poor methodology. Compression seems to increase healing rates. Various high compression regimens are more effective than low compression. Few trials have compared the effectiveness of different high compression systems. CONCLUSIONS: Compression systems improve the healing of venous leg ulcers and should be used routinely in uncomplicated venous ulcers. Insufficient reliable evidence exists to indicate which system is the most effective. More good quality randomised controlled trials in association with economic evaluations are needed, to ascertain the most cost effective system for treating venous leg ulcers.     

I Publish in I Edit? - Do Editorial Board Members of Urologic Journals Preferentially Publish Their Own Scientific Work?

Scientists who are members of an editorial board have been accused of preferentially publishing their scientific work in the journal where they serve as editor. Reputation and academic standing do depend on an uninterrupted flow of published scientific work and the question does arise as to whether publication mainly occurs in the self-edited journal. This investigation was designed to determine whether editorial board members of five urological journals were more likely to publish their research reports in their own rather than in other journals. A retrospective analysis was conducted for all original reports published from 2001–2010 by 65 editorial board members nominated to the boards of five impact leading urologic journals in 2006. Publications before editorial board membership, 2001–2005, and publications within the period of time as an editorial board member, 2006–2010, were identified. The impact factors of the journals were also recorded over the time period 2001–2010 to see whether a change in impact factor correlated with publication locality. In the five journals as a whole, scientific work was not preferentially published in the journal in which the scientists served as editor. However, significant heterogeneity among the journals was evident. One journal showed a significant increase in the amount of published papers in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship, three journals showed no change and one journal showed a highly significant decrease in publishing in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship.     

Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue - cohort study

Background

Transparency in reporting of conflict of interest is an increasingly important aspect of publication in medical journals. Publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations and journal income through reprint sales and thereby be a source of conflicts of interest for journals. We investigated industry-supported trials'' influence on journal impact factors and revenue.

Methods and Findings

We sampled six major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]). For each journal, we identified randomised trials published in 1996–1997 and 2005–2006 using PubMed, and categorized the type of financial support. Using Web of Science, we investigated citations of industry-supported trials and the influence on journal impact factors over a ten-year period. We contacted journal editors and retrieved tax information on income from industry sources. The proportion of trials with sole industry support varied between journals, from 7% in BMJ to 32% in NEJM in 2005–2006. Industry-supported trials were more frequently cited than trials with other types of support, and omitting them from the impact factor calculation decreased journal impact factors. The decrease varied considerably between journals, with 1% for BMJ to 15% for NEJM in 2007. For the two journals disclosing data, income from the sales of reprints contributed to 3% and 41% of the total income for BMJ and The Lancet in 2005–2006.

Conclusions

Publication of industry-supported trials was associated with an increase in journal impact factors. Sales of reprints may provide a substantial income. We suggest that journals disclose financial information in the same way that they require them from their authors, so that readers can assess the potential effect of different types of papers on journals'' revenue and impact. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Multifactorial assessment and targeted intervention for preventing falls and injuries among older people in community and emergency care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of multifactorial assessment and intervention programmes to prevent falls and injuries among older adults recruited to trials in primary care, community, or emergency care settings.Design Systematic review of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, and meta-analysis.Data sources Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index) to 22 March 2007, reference lists of included studies, and previous reviews.Review methods Eligible studies were randomised or quasi-randomised trials that evaluated interventions to prevent falls that were based in emergency departments, primary care, or the community that assessed multiple risk factors for falling and provided or arranged for treatments to address these risk factors.Data extraction Outcomes were number of fallers, fall related injuries, fall rate, death, admission to hospital, contacts with health services, move to institutional care, physical activity, and quality of life. Methodological quality assessment included allocation concealment, blinding, losses and exclusions, intention to treat analysis, and reliability of outcome measurement. Results 19 studies, of variable methodological quality, were included. The combined risk ratio for the number of fallers during follow-up among 18 trials was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.02) and for fall related injuries (eight trials) was 0.90 (0.68 to 1.20). No differences were found in admissions to hospital, emergency department attendance, death, or move to institutional care. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of different effects between interventions in different locations, populations selected for high risk of falls or unselected, and multidisciplinary teams including a doctor, but interventions that actively provide treatments may be more effective than those that provide only knowledge and referral.Conclusions Evidence that multifactorial fall prevention programmes in primary care, community, or emergency care settings are effective in reducing the number of fallers or fall related injuries is limited. Data were insufficient to assess fall and injury rates.