Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Otago Home‐Based Strength and Balance Retraining Improves Executive Functioning in Older Fallers: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Liu‐Ambrose, Teresa, Donaldson, Meghan G., Ahamed, Yasmin, Graf, Peter, Cook, Wendy L., Close, Jacqueline, Lord, Stephen R., Khan, Karim M.·2008·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
DOI 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01931.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To primarily ascertain the effect of the Otago Exercise Program (OEP) on physiological falls risk, functional mobility, and executive functioning after 6 months in older adults with a recent history of falls and to ascertain the effect of the OEP on falls during a 1‐year follow‐up period. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Dedicated falls clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy‐four adults aged 70 and older who presented to a healthcare professional after a fall. INTERVENTION: The OEP, a home‐based program that consists of resistance training and balance training exercises. MEASUREMENTS: Physiological falls risk was assessed using the Physiological Profile Assessment. Functional mobility was assessed using the Timed Up and Go Test. Three central executive functions were assessed: set shifting, using the Trail Making Test Part B; updating, using the verbal digits backward test; and response inhibition, using the Stroop Color‐Word Test. Falls were prospectively monitored using daily calendars. RESULTS: At 6 months, there was no significant between‐group difference in physiological falls risk or functional mobility ( P ≥ .33). There was a significant between‐group difference in response inhibition ( P =.05). A falls histogram revealed two outliers. With these cases removed, using negative binomial regression, the unadjusted incidence rate ratio of falls in the OEP group compared with the control group was 0.56. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.47. CONCLUSION: The OEP may reduce falls by improving cognitive performance.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01931.x

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 17 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Liu‐Ambrose, T., Donaldson, M. G., Ahamed, Y., Graf, P., Cook, W. L., Close, J., Lord, S. R., & Khan, K. M.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-10
Volume
56
Issue
10
Pages
1821-1830
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
DOI
10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01931.x
OpenAlex
W2107169156
Cited by
322
References
17
FWCI
34.65
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.