Investigation of commonly used assessment methods for predicting fall risk in the elderly

IF 3.9

Experimental gerontology Pub Date : 2025-05-13 DOI:10.1016/j.exger.2025.112784

Aziz DENGİZ , Ahmet AYTEPE , Bayram SIRRI , Mehmet EFE

{"title":"Investigation of commonly used assessment methods for predicting fall risk in the elderly","authors":"Aziz DENGİZ , Ahmet AYTEPE , Bayram SIRRI , Mehmet EFE","doi":"10.1016/j.exger.2025.112784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of four different commonly used assessment methods Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (MFES), and Morse Fall Scale (MFS) in predicting fall risk in elderly.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>The study included 195 participants (97 female, mean age: 69.82 ± 7.45 years) aged 60 and above. The BBS, TUG, MFES, and MFS were used to asses fall risk. Logistic regression analysis was conduct.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The addition of independent variables significantly reduced the −2 Log Likelihood value (from 222.015 to 49.196), and the Nagelkerke R<sup>2</sup> value was 0.865. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (<em>p</em> = .738) and ROC analysis (AUC 0.958–0.972) confirmed the model's strong fit and high discriminative power. The MFS (B = 0.120, <em>p</em> = .001, Exp(B) = 1.128) and the TUG(B = 0.542, <em>p</em> = .004, Exp(B) = 1.720) were significantly associated with fall risk. In contrast, the MFES and BBS did not show statistically significant effects.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The MFS and TUG are particularly effective in identifying fall risk in elderly individuals. However, using these tests alone may have limited predictive power, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for fall risk assessment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94003,"journal":{"name":"Experimental gerontology","volume":"206 ","pages":"Article 112784"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental gerontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556525001135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of four different commonly used assessment methods Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (MFES), and Morse Fall Scale (MFS) in predicting fall risk in elderly.

Method

The study included 195 participants (97 female, mean age: 69.82 ± 7.45 years) aged 60 and above. The BBS, TUG, MFES, and MFS were used to asses fall risk. Logistic regression analysis was conduct.

Results

The addition of independent variables significantly reduced the −2 Log Likelihood value (from 222.015 to 49.196), and the Nagelkerke R² value was 0.865. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (p = .738) and ROC analysis (AUC 0.958–0.972) confirmed the model's strong fit and high discriminative power. The MFS (B = 0.120, p = .001, Exp(B) = 1.128) and the TUG(B = 0.542, p = .004, Exp(B) = 1.720) were significantly associated with fall risk. In contrast, the MFES and BBS did not show statistically significant effects.

Conclusions

The MFS and TUG are particularly effective in identifying fall risk in elderly individuals. However, using these tests alone may have limited predictive power, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for fall risk assessment.

查看原文本刊更多论文

预测老年人跌倒风险常用评估方法的研究。

目的：评价Berg平衡量表（BBS）、Timed Up and Go Test （TUG）、改良跌倒效能量表（MFES）和Morse跌倒量表（MFS）四种常用的评估方法对老年人跌倒风险的预测效果。方法：纳入195例60岁及以上患者，其中女性97例，平均年龄：69.82 ± 7.45 岁。使用BBS、TUG、MFES和MFS来评估跌倒风险。进行Logistic回归分析。结果：自变量的加入显著降低了-2对数似然值（由222.015降至49.196），Nagelkerke R2值为0.865。Hosmer-Lemeshow拟合优度检验（p = .738）和ROC分析（AUC 0.958-0.972）证实模型拟合强，判别能力强。MFS （B = 0.120,p = ）。001, Exp(B) = 1.128)，TUG（B = 0.542,p = ）。004, Exp(B) = 1.720)与跌倒风险显著相关。相比之下，MFES和BBS没有显示出统计学上显著的影响。结论：MFS和TUG在识别老年人跌倒风险方面特别有效。然而，单独使用这些测试可能具有有限的预测能力，突出了多学科方法对跌倒风险评估的重要性。

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