Errata
Page 19, table 1, third row, sixth column
Standing balance, an item from the Postural Control and Balance for Stroke test predicted falls.
Page 23, line 16 ... sex differences in relation to risk factors for falls must be further investigated...
Page 25, table 2, last row, last column
Cox regression and, negative binomial regresion, and Poisson regression.
Page 33, line 11 For papers 3 & 4, falls were complemented by incidents registered in the National Quality Registry for Preventative Care.
Page 35, line 14 … the fifth sixth item was analyzed as paresis in ≥ one leg…
Page 42, line 27 If the research described in this paper thesis had not been conducted…
Page 48, figure 2 Figure 2. Monthly fall incidence (mean and 95% CI) by sex Page 68, line 1 ...contributes to the internal external validity of the study…
Paper 1
Page 4, line 27 … (approval number: dnr 2013/14-31, 2013/132-32, 2013/291-32, 2017/578-32).
Paper 2
Page 3, line 2 … four (three of the nine previously mentioned and the first author) physiotherapists…
Page 7, table 2 Pares
Right side, % (n) 20 (4) 7 8 (17) Left side, % (n) 65 (13) 14 (30)
No pares, % (n) 15 (3) 73 (162) 74 (161)
Both, % (n) 5 (11)
Missing data 0 (1) 1 (2)
Page 10, line 9 Among the 221 participants included in the predictive validity analysis 83 participants fell and 138 did not.
Page 10, line 14 … of days that passed from admission discharge to the first fall incident (R=−0.28, p=0.02).
Page 13, line 38 Informed consent was obtained from all participants...
Page 13, line 40 … (dnr 2013/14-31, 2013/132-32, 2013/291-32, 2015/353-31, 2017/577-32, 2017/578-32).
Paper 2 Errata published in the journal Physiotherapy research international
In the above mentioned article, the relationship between the CEW and falls was analysed both by linear regressions and by Cox regression. In the Cox regression analysis we have discovered an error (number of days to first fall was incorrectly used in the analysis instead of number of days at risk). After correction of this there was no longer a significant relationship in the Cox analysis. The significant correlations seen in the linear regressions are correct and thus the main conclusion remains.
Page 1, line 36 Cox regression showed that participants who touched four to eight cones had an increased risk of falls over time (Hazard ratio 2.11, 95% CI [1.07−4.17]) compared with those who touched none. There was a poor, negative correlation between the number of cones touched and the number of days that passed from admission discharge to the first fall incident (R = −0.28, p = 0.02).
Page 5, line 43 The relationship between the CEW and falls and the number of days to the first fall incident was analysed by linear regression, and the ability of the CEW to predict falls was analysed by Cox regression.
Page 10, line 14 Cox regression showed that the risk of falls over time more than doubled for participants who touched four to eight cones compared with those who touched none (Hazard ratio 2.11, 95% CI 1.07−4.17, p=0.03) (Figure 2).
Cox regression did not show any significant differences in the risk of falls over time for participants who touched one to three or four to eight cones, compared with those who touched none (Figure 2).
Page 10, figure 2
was replaced with
Number of days from admission Number of days from discharge
Paper 3
Page 1, line 26 …more than 9 8 medications Page 6, line 2 …more than nine 8 medications
Paper 4
Page 5, line 38 … yielding an a monthly incidence rate of 0.178 falls for women and 0.185 falls for men.
Page 6, figure 2. Figure 2. Monthly fall incidence (mean and 95% CI) by sex
