Falls determine huge epidemiological, clinical, and economic burden in the older population worldwide, presenting high odds of severe disability. The present study aimed to estimate the prevalence of falls and associated factors in older Brazilians using a systematic review with meta-analysis. Searches were performed in SciELO, PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO databases with no date or language restrictions. Studies on community-dwelling older persons aged ≥ 60 years from both sexes and with a sample size of ≥ 300 participants included. Exclusion criteria were studies conducted specifically for older adults diagnosed with chronic disabling diseases that predispose them to falls. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using a critical appraisal tool focusing on prevalence designs. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the prevalence of falls across studies. Exploratory analysis was conducted examining subgroup estimates, prevalence ratios and meta-regression. Thirty-seven studies involving 58,597 participants were included. Twelve-month prevalence of falls was 27% (95%CI: 24.3-30.0), with significantly higher estimates in female than male (PR = 1.57; 95%CI: 1.32-1.86), in age group ≥ 80 years than age group 60-69 years (PR = 1.46; 95%CI: 1.15-1.84), and in participants from the Central region than participants from the South region (PR = 1.36; 95%CI: 1.10-1.69) of Brazil. Risk of bias scores did not impact heterogeneity in the 12-month meta-analysis. These estimates strongly support evidence-based public interventions to prevent falls in older Brazilians, especially in women and the oldest-old population.

Background: Pain assessment is a key measure that accompanies treatments in a wide range of clinical settings. A low-cost valid and reliable pressure algometer would allow objective assessment of pressure pain to assist a variety of health professionals. However, the pressure algometer is often expensive, which limits its daily use in both clinical and research settings. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the instrumental validity, and the intra- and inter-rater reliability of an inexpensive digital adapted pressure algometer. Methods: A single rater applied 60 random compressions on a force platform. The pressure pain thresholds of 20 volunteers were collected twice (3 days apart) by two raters. The main outcome measurements were as follows: the maximal peak force (in kPa) and the pressure pain threshold (adapted pressure algometer vs. force platform). Cronbach’s α test was used to assess internal consistency. The standard error of measurement provided estimates of measurement error, and the measurement bias was estimated with the Bland–Altman method, with lower and upper limits of agreement. Results: No differences were observed when comparing the compression results (P = 0.51). The validity and internal intra-rater consistencies ranged from 0.84 to 0.99, and the standard error of measurement from 0.005 to 0.04 kPa. Very strong (r = 0.73–0.74) to near-perfect (r = 0.99) correlations were found, with a low risk of bias for all measurements. The results demonstrated the validity and intra-rater reliability of the digitally adapted pressure algometer. Inter-rater reliability results were moderate (r = 0.55–0.60; Cronbach’s α = 0.71–0.75). Conclusion: The adapted pressure algometer provide valid and reliable measurements of pressure pain threshold. The results support more widespread use of the pressure pain threshold method among clinicians.