The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is the Timed Up and Go test a useful predictor of risk of falls in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta- analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background: The Timed Up and Go test (TUG) is a commonly used screening tool to assist clinicians to identify patients at risk of falling. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the overall predictive value of the TUG in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all studies that validated the TUG test. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, a validated tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. A TUG score of ≥13.5 seconds was used to identify individuals at higher risk of falling. All included studies were combined using a bivariate random effects model to generate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity at ≥13.5 seconds. Heterogeneity was assessed using the variance of logit transformed sensitivity and specificity. Results: Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review and 10 studies were included in meta-analysis. The TUG test was found to be more useful at ruling in rather than ruling out falls in individuals classified as high risk (>13.5 sec), with a higher pooled specificity (0.74, 95% CI 0.52-0.88) than sensitivity (0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.57). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the TUG score is not a significant predictor of falls (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p = 0.05). Conclusion: The Timed Up and Go test has limited ability to predict falls in community dwelling elderly and should not be used in isolation to identify individuals at high risk of falls in this setting.
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
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
Risk factors and risk assessment tools for falls in hospital in-patients: a systematic review
Oliver, D. (2004) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afh017 · Cited by 714
Cited by
Lo, K., Wong, M., Khalechelvam, P., & Tam, W. (2016) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.12456 · Cited by 254
Type 2 diabetes and impaired physical function: a growing problem
Ahmad, E., Sargeant, J. A., Yates, T., Webb, D. R., & Davies, M. J. (2022) · Diabetology · doi:10.3390/diabetology3010003 · Cited by 52
Liu, M., Zhou, K., Chen, Y., Zhou, L., Bao, D., & Zhou, J. (2022) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.843481 · Cited by 50
De Vroey, H., Claeys, K., Shariatmadar, K., Weygers, I., Vereecke, E., Van Damme, G., Hallez, H., & Staes, F. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm9030738 · Cited by 45
Comprehensive geriatric assessment
Schippinger, W. (2022) · Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift · doi:10.1007/s10354-021-00905-y · Cited by 25
Ugarte LL., J., & Vargas R., F. (2021) · Revista médica de Chile · doi:10.4067/s0034-98872021000901302 · Cited by 19
Lim, B., Choi, B., Roh, C., Lee, J., Kim, Y.-J., & Lee, Y. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-95599-2 · Cited by 18
3rd Orthopaedic Department, K. G. H., & Sotiriadi-Vlachou, S. (2017) · Journal of Frailty, Sarcopenia and Falls · doi:10.22540/jfsf-02-028 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Barry, E., Galvin, R., Keogh, C., Horgan, F., & Fahey, T.
- Venue
- BMC Geriatrics
- Published
- 2014-02-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-14
- ISSN
- 1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2101115134
- Cited by
- 1,017
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 9.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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.
