The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Streamlining assessment and intervention in a falls clinic using the Timed Up and Go Test and Physiological Profile Assessments
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT) has been recommended as a simple screening tool to identify those at risk of falling. However, subsequent detailed assessment is required to identify underlying falls risk factors to provide direction for optimal targeted intervention strategies. METHODS: 110 consecutive falls clinic patients underwent the TUGT, the Abbreviated Mental Test and the Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA), a validated tool for quantifying risk of falling based on a combination of physiological measures-contrast sensitivity, knee extension strength, proprioception, reaction time and postural sway. Regression analysis was used to determine how well the TUGT and presence of cognitive impairment could identify patients at high risk of falls as defined by the PPA. RESULTS: TUGT and cognitive status were found to be independent and significant predictors of PPA scores. These variables accounted for 21% of the variance in PPA scores (multiple R=0.47, P<0.001). The standardised beta weights were 0.403 for TUGT and 0.236 for cognitive status. A receiver-operator curve (ROC) indicated that 15 seconds in the TUGT was the optimal cut-point for identifying those with a high risk of falling: 70% of the total sample. CONCLUSIONS: The TUGT and a simple test of cognition can be used to streamline referrals in a high-risk population, allowing for more efficient use of available resources in clinical practice. A subsequent PPA provides quantification of risk and direction for tailored intervention.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Timed “Up & Go”: A Test of Basic Functional Mobility for Frail Elderly Persons
Podsiadlo, D., & Richardson, S. (1991) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x · Cited by 14,418
Guideline for the Prevention of Falls in Older Persons
Society, A. G., Society, G., Of, A. A., & On Falls Prevention, O. S. P. (2001) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49115.x · Cited by 2,242
Shaw, F. E., Bond, J., Richardson, D. A., Dawson, P., Steen, I. N., McKeith, I. G., & Kenny, R. A. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7380.73 · Cited by 414
Cited by
Tools for assessing fall risk in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Park, S.-H. (2018) · Aging Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1007/s40520-017-0749-0 · Cited by 561
iTUG, a Sensitive and Reliable Measure of Mobility
Salarian, A., Horak, F. B., Zampieri, C., Carlson-Kuhta, P., Nutt, J. G., & Aminian, K. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2010.2047606 · Cited by 489
Jehu, D. A., Davis, J. C., Madden, K., Parmar, N., & Liu-Ambrose, T. (2022) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000518939 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Whitney, J. C., Lord, S. R., & Close, J. C. T.
- Venue
- Age and Ageing
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-11-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 567-571
- ISSN
- 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2834
- OpenAlex
- W2117077102
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 20.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.