在老年人跌倒风险评估中,计时起跑测试(TUG)和特定活动平衡信心问卷(ABC)与“金标准”伯格平衡量表(BBS)的效度比较

Hunter Leger, Reagan Tittle, Sankela Dowdell, Cody Thompson
{"title":"在老年人跌倒风险评估中,计时起跑测试(TUG)和特定活动平衡信心问卷(ABC)与“金标准”伯格平衡量表(BBS)的效度比较","authors":"Hunter Leger, Reagan Tittle, Sankela Dowdell, Cody Thompson","doi":"10.33790/jrpr1100133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Falls are ranked as the leading cause of death from unintentional injury among older adults in the United States. Approximately 25% of the older adults in the U.S. experience a fall each year, which leads to excessive healthcare costs. Falls lead to serious injuries such as broken bones and head injuries hospitalizing 800,000 patients a year [1]. Based on those statistics, identifying fall risk accurately and efficiently using balance assessments is pertinent to fall prevention in the geriatric population. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the validity of the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire (ABC) to the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in assessing the risk of falls in the elderly population.\n\nMethods: The systematic review was conducted to highlight balance assessments including the Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go Test, and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire. Databases used in the electronic search were PubMed, Google Scholar, MedlinePlus, PTNow, PEDro, and EBSCOhost, and parameters were set at studies published from 2010 to 2021. All relevant studies were reviewed by assessing abstracts for inclusion. Studies in which participants completed and were scored on the three balance assessments were included. All participants completing the tests were required to be 65 years of age or older in order for the respective study to be included.\n\nResults: 62 studies were identified for further review after the initial search. After a more extensive screening process, several studies were excluded for reasons such as study design, age of participants, or insufficient testing measures. 16 studies were included for data analysis with a total of 1,376 participants. The validity of the BBS, TUG, and ABC were measured in the 16 studies with strong negative correlation between BBS and TUG (rho (22) = -.756, p < .01), and moderate positive correlation between BBS and ABC (rho (22) = .591, p < .01).\n\nConclusions: The Timed Up and Go test may be an effective and valid tool assessing balance and a participant’s fall risk. It has been shown to have a strong correlation with the Berg Balance Scale. Meanwhile, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire, a subjective measure, has a moderate correlation with the Berg Balance Scale indicating that it is capable of identifying fall risk but not as accurately or efficiently as the Timed Up and Go Test. This research advocates for the appropriateness of the TUG test and ABC questionnaire, and therefore widens clinicians’ choices of valid balance assessment tools during fall risk examinations.","PeriodicalId":413567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rehabilitation Practices and Research","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Validity of the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire (ABC) to the ‘Gold Standard’ Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in Assessing Fall Risk in the Elderly Population\",\"authors\":\"Hunter Leger, Reagan Tittle, Sankela Dowdell, Cody Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.33790/jrpr1100133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Falls are ranked as the leading cause of death from unintentional injury among older adults in the United States. Approximately 25% of the older adults in the U.S. experience a fall each year, which leads to excessive healthcare costs. Falls lead to serious injuries such as broken bones and head injuries hospitalizing 800,000 patients a year [1]. Based on those statistics, identifying fall risk accurately and efficiently using balance assessments is pertinent to fall prevention in the geriatric population. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the validity of the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire (ABC) to the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in assessing the risk of falls in the elderly population.\\n\\nMethods: The systematic review was conducted to highlight balance assessments including the Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go Test, and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire. Databases used in the electronic search were PubMed, Google Scholar, MedlinePlus, PTNow, PEDro, and EBSCOhost, and parameters were set at studies published from 2010 to 2021. All relevant studies were reviewed by assessing abstracts for inclusion. Studies in which participants completed and were scored on the three balance assessments were included. All participants completing the tests were required to be 65 years of age or older in order for the respective study to be included.\\n\\nResults: 62 studies were identified for further review after the initial search. After a more extensive screening process, several studies were excluded for reasons such as study design, age of participants, or insufficient testing measures. 16 studies were included for data analysis with a total of 1,376 participants. The validity of the BBS, TUG, and ABC were measured in the 16 studies with strong negative correlation between BBS and TUG (rho (22) = -.756, p < .01), and moderate positive correlation between BBS and ABC (rho (22) = .591, p < .01).\\n\\nConclusions: The Timed Up and Go test may be an effective and valid tool assessing balance and a participant’s fall risk. It has been shown to have a strong correlation with the Berg Balance Scale. Meanwhile, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire, a subjective measure, has a moderate correlation with the Berg Balance Scale indicating that it is capable of identifying fall risk but not as accurately or efficiently as the Timed Up and Go Test. This research advocates for the appropriateness of the TUG test and ABC questionnaire, and therefore widens clinicians’ choices of valid balance assessment tools during fall risk examinations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":413567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Rehabilitation Practices and Research\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Rehabilitation Practices and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33790/jrpr1100133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rehabilitation Practices and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33790/jrpr1100133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在美国,跌倒被列为老年人意外伤害死亡的主要原因。在美国,每年大约有25%的老年人跌倒,这导致了过高的医疗费用。每年有80万患者因跌倒导致骨折、头部受伤等严重伤害住院[1]。基于这些统计数据,使用平衡评估准确有效地识别跌倒风险与老年人群预防跌倒有关。因此,本研究的目的是比较计时起跑测验(TUG)和特定活动平衡信心问卷(ABC)与伯格平衡量表(BBS)在评估老年人跌倒风险方面的效度。方法:系统回顾了平衡性评估,包括伯格平衡性量表、计时起身测试和特定活动平衡性信心问卷。电子检索中使用的数据库为PubMed、Google Scholar、MedlinePlus、PTNow、PEDro和EBSCOhost,参数设置在2010年至2021年发表的研究中。所有相关研究均通过评估摘要纳入。研究包括参与者完成并在三个平衡评估中得分的研究。所有完成测试的参与者都必须年满65岁,才能纳入相应的研究。结果:在初步检索后,确定了62项研究进行进一步审查。经过更广泛的筛选过程后,由于研究设计、参与者年龄或测试措施不足等原因,一些研究被排除在外。16项研究纳入数据分析,共有1376名参与者。16项研究测量了BBS、TUG和ABC的效度,BBS与TUG呈强负相关(rho(22) = -)。756, p < 0.01), BBS与ABC呈正相关(rho (22) = .591, p < 0.01)。结论:Timed Up and Go测试可能是评估平衡和参与者跌倒风险的有效工具。它已被证明与伯格平衡量表有很强的相关性。同时,活动特定平衡信心问卷,一种主观测量,与伯格平衡量表有适度的相关性,表明它能够识别跌倒风险,但不像计时起来和走测试那样准确或有效。本研究提倡TUG测试和ABC问卷的适用性,从而拓宽了临床医生在跌倒风险检查中对有效平衡评估工具的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Validity of the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire (ABC) to the ‘Gold Standard’ Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in Assessing Fall Risk in the Elderly Population
Background: Falls are ranked as the leading cause of death from unintentional injury among older adults in the United States. Approximately 25% of the older adults in the U.S. experience a fall each year, which leads to excessive healthcare costs. Falls lead to serious injuries such as broken bones and head injuries hospitalizing 800,000 patients a year [1]. Based on those statistics, identifying fall risk accurately and efficiently using balance assessments is pertinent to fall prevention in the geriatric population. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the validity of the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire (ABC) to the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in assessing the risk of falls in the elderly population. Methods: The systematic review was conducted to highlight balance assessments including the Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go Test, and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire. Databases used in the electronic search were PubMed, Google Scholar, MedlinePlus, PTNow, PEDro, and EBSCOhost, and parameters were set at studies published from 2010 to 2021. All relevant studies were reviewed by assessing abstracts for inclusion. Studies in which participants completed and were scored on the three balance assessments were included. All participants completing the tests were required to be 65 years of age or older in order for the respective study to be included. Results: 62 studies were identified for further review after the initial search. After a more extensive screening process, several studies were excluded for reasons such as study design, age of participants, or insufficient testing measures. 16 studies were included for data analysis with a total of 1,376 participants. The validity of the BBS, TUG, and ABC were measured in the 16 studies with strong negative correlation between BBS and TUG (rho (22) = -.756, p < .01), and moderate positive correlation between BBS and ABC (rho (22) = .591, p < .01). Conclusions: The Timed Up and Go test may be an effective and valid tool assessing balance and a participant’s fall risk. It has been shown to have a strong correlation with the Berg Balance Scale. Meanwhile, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Questionnaire, a subjective measure, has a moderate correlation with the Berg Balance Scale indicating that it is capable of identifying fall risk but not as accurately or efficiently as the Timed Up and Go Test. This research advocates for the appropriateness of the TUG test and ABC questionnaire, and therefore widens clinicians’ choices of valid balance assessment tools during fall risk examinations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信