Predictive value of different physical performance assessment methods for falls in older adults: a 3-year longitudinal study in China.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Fei Lu, Xiaohong Liu, Jiaojiao Li, Xiaohong Sun, Shan Jiang
{"title":"Predictive value of different physical performance assessment methods for falls in older adults: a 3-year longitudinal study in China.","authors":"Fei Lu, Xiaohong Liu, Jiaojiao Li, Xiaohong Sun, Shan Jiang","doi":"10.1007/s41999-025-01184-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to analyze the predictive value of different physical performances including short physical performance battery (SPPB), time-up and go test (TUGT), gait speed (GS), five times sit-to-stand test (FTSST) and handgrip strength (HGS) on the incidence of falls among community-dwelling older adults and to propose the cut-off values for predicting the incidence of falls.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This 3-year longitudinal observational study continuously recruited community-dwelling older adults in 2018, assessing baseline physical performances and recording fall incidence (at least one fall) after 3 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 215 older adults (mean age, 84.0 ± 4.4 years; 123 [57.2%] females) included in this study, 98 (45.6%) fell. After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidity, decreased SPPB score (odds ratio [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.94), increased TUGT time (OR = 1.07, 95% CI, 1.03-1.12), and lower GS (OR = 0.11, 95% CI, 0.03-0.37) were significantly associated with higher risk of fall and had similar predictive values, while the FTSST and HGS were not. To predict the incidence of falls, the areas under the curve for SPPB, TUGT, and GS were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65-0.77), 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.79), and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64-0.77), whereas the cut-offs were 7 points, 14.8 s, and 0.75 m/s, according to the Youden index, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As physical performance indicators, SPPB, TUGT, and GS may be more effective in assessing fall risk, and the threshold values proposed in this study can be used as a reference for stratified fall risk management among community-dwelling older residents.</p>","PeriodicalId":49287,"journal":{"name":"European Geriatric Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Geriatric Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-025-01184-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the predictive value of different physical performances including short physical performance battery (SPPB), time-up and go test (TUGT), gait speed (GS), five times sit-to-stand test (FTSST) and handgrip strength (HGS) on the incidence of falls among community-dwelling older adults and to propose the cut-off values for predicting the incidence of falls.

Methods: This 3-year longitudinal observational study continuously recruited community-dwelling older adults in 2018, assessing baseline physical performances and recording fall incidence (at least one fall) after 3 years.

Results: Of the 215 older adults (mean age, 84.0 ± 4.4 years; 123 [57.2%] females) included in this study, 98 (45.6%) fell. After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidity, decreased SPPB score (odds ratio [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.94), increased TUGT time (OR = 1.07, 95% CI, 1.03-1.12), and lower GS (OR = 0.11, 95% CI, 0.03-0.37) were significantly associated with higher risk of fall and had similar predictive values, while the FTSST and HGS were not. To predict the incidence of falls, the areas under the curve for SPPB, TUGT, and GS were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65-0.77), 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.79), and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64-0.77), whereas the cut-offs were 7 points, 14.8 s, and 0.75 m/s, according to the Youden index, respectively.

Conclusion: As physical performance indicators, SPPB, TUGT, and GS may be more effective in assessing fall risk, and the threshold values proposed in this study can be used as a reference for stratified fall risk management among community-dwelling older residents.

不同体能评估方法对老年人跌倒的预测价值:中国一项为期3年的纵向研究
目的:本研究旨在分析短时间体能测试(SPPB)、起跑时间测试(TUGT)、步速测试(GS)、五次坐立测试(FTSST)和握力测试(HGS)等不同体能测试对社区老年人跌倒发生率的预测价值,并提出预测跌倒发生率的截断值。方法:这项为期3年的纵向观察研究于2018年连续招募社区居住的老年人,评估基线身体表现并记录3年后跌倒发生率(至少一次跌倒)。结果:215例老年人(平均年龄84.0±4.4岁;123例(57.2%)女性纳入本研究,98例(45.6%)下降。在调整了年龄、性别和共病因素后,SPPB评分降低(优势比[OR] = 0.84, 95%可信区间[CI], 0.75-0.94)、TUGT时间增加(OR = 1.07, 95% CI, 1.03-1.12)和GS降低(OR = 0.11, 95% CI, 0.03-0.37)与跌倒风险增加显著相关,具有相似的预测价值,而FTSST和HGS则没有。为预测跌倒发生率,根据约登指数,SPPB、TUGT和GS的曲线下面积分别为0.71 (95% CI: 0.65-0.77)、0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.79)和0.71 (95% CI: 0.64-0.77),而截止点分别为7点、14.8 s和0.75 m/s。结论:SPPB、TUGT和GS作为身体性能指标,在评估跌倒风险方面可能更有效,本研究提出的阈值可作为社区老年居民分层跌倒风险管理的参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Geriatric Medicine
European Geriatric Medicine GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Geriatric Medicine is the official journal of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS). Launched in 2010, this journal aims to publish the highest quality material, both scientific and clinical, on all aspects of Geriatric Medicine. The EUGMS is interested in the promotion of Geriatric Medicine in any setting (acute or subacute care, rehabilitation, nursing homes, primary care, fall clinics, ambulatory assessment, dementia clinics..), and also in functionality in old age, comprehensive geriatric assessment, geriatric syndromes, geriatric education, old age psychiatry, models of geriatric care in health services, and quality assurance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信