Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 253

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting falls in older adults: an umbrella review of instruments assessing gait, balance, and functional mobility

Open access
Beck Jepsen, D., Robinson, K., Ogliari, G., Montero-Odasso, M., Kamkar, N., Ryg, J., Freiberger, E., Masud, T.·2022·BMC Geriatrics

Abstract

Background: To review the validated instruments that assess gait, balance, and functional mobility to predict falls in older adults across different settings. Methods: Umbrella review of narrative- and systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of all study types. Reviews that focused on older adults in any settings and included validated instruments assessing gait, balance, and functional mobility were included. Medical and allied health professional databases (MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched from inception to April 2022. Two reviewers undertook title, abstract, and full text screening independently. Review quality was assessed through the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS). Data extraction was completed in duplicate using a standardised spreadsheet and a narrative synthesis presented for each assessment tool. Results: Among 2736 articles initially identified, 31 reviews were included; 11 were meta-analyses. Reviews were primarily of low quality, thus at high risk of potential bias. The most frequently reported assessments were: Timed Up and Go, Berg Balance Scale, gait speed, dual task assessments, single leg stance, functional Reach Test, tandem gait and stance and the chair stand test. Findings on the predictive ability of these tests were inconsistent across the reviews. Conclusions: In conclusion, we found that no single gait, balance or functional mobility assessment in isolation can be used to predict fall risk in older adults with high certainty. Moderate evidence suggests gait speed can be useful in predicting falls and might be included as part of a comprehensive evaluation for older adults.

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 · 10.1186/s12877-022-03271-5

Cites

59 of 59 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 59 references

Cited by

See all 253

Metadata

Authors
Beck Jepsen, D., Robinson, K., Ogliari, G., Montero-Odasso, M., Kamkar, N., Ryg, J., Freiberger, E., & Masud, T.
Venue
BMC Geriatrics
Published
2022-07-25
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
615-615
ISSN
1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4287307658
Cited by
253
References
59
FWCI
80.31
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting falls in older adults: an umbrella review of instruments assessing gait, balance, and functional mobility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12877-022-03271-5
The paper
Beck Jepsen, D., Robinson, K., Ogliari, G., Montero-Odasso, M., Kamkar, N., Ryg, J., Freiberger, E., & Masud, T. (2022). Predicting falls in older adults: an umbrella review of instruments assessing gait, balance, and functional mobility. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03271-5

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.