4.6 Article

Validity of Simple Gait-Related Dual-Task Tests in Predicting Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.07.027

关键词

Aged; Accidental falls; Cognition; Gait; Rehabilitation

资金

  1. University of Jordan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the predictive validity of simple gait-related dual-task (DT) tests in predicting falls in community-dwelling older adults. Design: A validation cohort study with 6 months' follow-up. Setting: General community. Participants: Independently ambulant community-dwelling adults (N=66) aged >= 65 years, with normal cognitive function. Sixty-two completed the follow-up. No participants required frames for walking. Interventions: Not applicable: Main Outcome Measures: Occurrence of falls in the follow-up period and performance on primary and secondary tasks of 8 DT tests and 1 triple-task (TT) test. Results: A random forest classification analysis identified the top 5 predictors of a fall as (1) absolute difference in time between the Timed Up & Go (TUG) as a single task (ST) and while carrying a cup; (2) time required to complete the walking task in the TT test; (3 and 4) walking and avoiding a moving obstacle as an ST and while carrying a cup; and (5) performing the TUG while carrying a cup. Separate bivariate logistic regression analyses showed that performance on these tasks was significantly associated with falling (P <.01). Despite the random forest analysis being a more robust approach than multivariate logistic regression, it was not clinically useful for predicting falls. Conclusions: This study identified the most important outcome measures in predicting falls using simple DT tests. The results showed that measures of change in performance were not useful in a multivariate model when compared With an allocated all to falls rule. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2014;95:58-64 (c) 2014 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据