Kelli A Nielsen, Michael Foley, Earllaine Croarkin, Patricia Runde, Stephanie Prinster, Laura S Gilchrist
{"title":"成人癌症患者跌倒筛查工具的准确性:系统评价。","authors":"Kelli A Nielsen, Michael Foley, Earllaine Croarkin, Patricia Runde, Stephanie Prinster, Laura S Gilchrist","doi":"10.1093/ptj/pzaf068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Patients with cancer experience increased falls risk secondary to oncological treatment and cancer-related sequela.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Identifying diagnostically and prognostically accurate screening tool(s) for falls risk in populations with cancer is an important issue.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Screening tests were identified in PubMed and CINAHL.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Data extraction was performed by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Tests were investigated for clinical utility, validity, diagnostic accuracy, and predictive capacity. Recommendations for screening measures were formulated using pre-determined criteria.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>Falls risk screening tools were identified for populations with cancer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 532 articles screened, 24 articles were included. Fifty-five variations of screening measures were identified, of which 47 had sufficient clinical utility. Twenty measures contained data on diagnostic accuracy or predictive capacity. No screening measure met all criteria to be highly recommended for both ruling in and ruling out falls risk currently (diagnostic accuracy) or in the future (predictive capacity). History of falls demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for ruling in immediate falls risk (specificity 98.9%, positive predictive value 84.6%). A negative falls history was highly indicative of lower future falls risk status (negative predictive value 82.5%-90.1%). Fear of falling demonstrated accuracy for ruling out immediate risk for falls (negative predictive value 87.0%, sensitivity of 88.7%). Strong predictive capacity was demonstrated with the Timed Up and Go (TUG) Standard (sensitivity 93% at ≤7.8 seconds, specificity 95% at ≥11.35 seconds).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on these results, a history of falls plus either the TUG Standard for those with a history of falls or subjective report of fear of falling for those without a history of falls is recommended for risk screening in populations with cancer.</p><p><strong>Relevance: </strong>Different screening tools are required for immediate versus future falls risk and are setting dependent.</p>","PeriodicalId":20093,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Falls Screening Tools in Adult Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Kelli A Nielsen, Michael Foley, Earllaine Croarkin, Patricia Runde, Stephanie Prinster, Laura S Gilchrist\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ptj/pzaf068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Patients with cancer experience increased falls risk secondary to oncological treatment and cancer-related sequela.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Identifying diagnostically and prognostically accurate screening tool(s) for falls risk in populations with cancer is an important issue.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Screening tests were identified in PubMed and CINAHL.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Data extraction was performed by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Tests were investigated for clinical utility, validity, diagnostic accuracy, and predictive capacity. Recommendations for screening measures were formulated using pre-determined criteria.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>Falls risk screening tools were identified for populations with cancer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 532 articles screened, 24 articles were included. Fifty-five variations of screening measures were identified, of which 47 had sufficient clinical utility. Twenty measures contained data on diagnostic accuracy or predictive capacity. No screening measure met all criteria to be highly recommended for both ruling in and ruling out falls risk currently (diagnostic accuracy) or in the future (predictive capacity). History of falls demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for ruling in immediate falls risk (specificity 98.9%, positive predictive value 84.6%). A negative falls history was highly indicative of lower future falls risk status (negative predictive value 82.5%-90.1%). Fear of falling demonstrated accuracy for ruling out immediate risk for falls (negative predictive value 87.0%, sensitivity of 88.7%). Strong predictive capacity was demonstrated with the Timed Up and Go (TUG) Standard (sensitivity 93% at ≤7.8 seconds, specificity 95% at ≥11.35 seconds).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on these results, a history of falls plus either the TUG Standard for those with a history of falls or subjective report of fear of falling for those without a history of falls is recommended for risk screening in populations with cancer.</p><p><strong>Relevance: </strong>Different screening tools are required for immediate versus future falls risk and are setting dependent.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physical Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physical Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaf068\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaf068","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
重要性:癌症患者因肿瘤治疗和癌症相关后遗症而导致跌倒风险增加。目的:确定诊断和预后准确的筛查工具在癌症人群跌倒风险是一个重要的问题。数据来源:筛选试验在PubMed和CINAHL中确定。研究选择:两名独立审稿人筛选纳入的引文。数据提取和综合:数据提取由1名审稿人进行,并由另一名审稿人进行验证。研究了测试的临床效用、有效性、诊断准确性和预测能力。筛查措施的建议是根据预先确定的标准制定的。措施:确定了针对癌症人群的跌倒风险筛查工具。结果:筛选532篇文献,纳入24篇。确定了55种不同的筛查措施,其中47种具有足够的临床效用。20项测量包含诊断准确性或预测能力的数据。目前(诊断准确性)或未来(预测能力),没有一种筛查措施符合所有强烈推荐的标准,既可以判定也可以排除跌倒风险。跌倒史对判定即刻跌倒风险具有良好的诊断准确性(特异性98.9%,阳性预测值84.6%)。阴性跌倒史高度表明未来跌倒风险较低(阴性预测值为82.5%-90.1%)。对跌倒的恐惧在排除跌倒的即时风险方面具有准确性(负预测值为87.0%,敏感性为88.7%)。使用Timed Up and Go (TUG)标准具有较强的预测能力(≤7.8秒时灵敏度93%,≥11.35秒时特异性95%)。结论:基于这些结果,建议在癌症人群中进行风险筛查时,有跌倒史的人应加上TUG标准,而没有跌倒史的人则应主观报告害怕跌倒。相关性:针对近期和未来的跌倒风险,需要不同的筛查工具,并且取决于具体情况。
Accuracy of Falls Screening Tools in Adult Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Importance: Patients with cancer experience increased falls risk secondary to oncological treatment and cancer-related sequela.
Objective: Identifying diagnostically and prognostically accurate screening tool(s) for falls risk in populations with cancer is an important issue.
Data sources: Screening tests were identified in PubMed and CINAHL.
Study selection: Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion.
Data extraction and synthesis: Data extraction was performed by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Tests were investigated for clinical utility, validity, diagnostic accuracy, and predictive capacity. Recommendations for screening measures were formulated using pre-determined criteria.
Measures: Falls risk screening tools were identified for populations with cancer.
Results: Of 532 articles screened, 24 articles were included. Fifty-five variations of screening measures were identified, of which 47 had sufficient clinical utility. Twenty measures contained data on diagnostic accuracy or predictive capacity. No screening measure met all criteria to be highly recommended for both ruling in and ruling out falls risk currently (diagnostic accuracy) or in the future (predictive capacity). History of falls demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for ruling in immediate falls risk (specificity 98.9%, positive predictive value 84.6%). A negative falls history was highly indicative of lower future falls risk status (negative predictive value 82.5%-90.1%). Fear of falling demonstrated accuracy for ruling out immediate risk for falls (negative predictive value 87.0%, sensitivity of 88.7%). Strong predictive capacity was demonstrated with the Timed Up and Go (TUG) Standard (sensitivity 93% at ≤7.8 seconds, specificity 95% at ≥11.35 seconds).
Conclusions: Based on these results, a history of falls plus either the TUG Standard for those with a history of falls or subjective report of fear of falling for those without a history of falls is recommended for risk screening in populations with cancer.
Relevance: Different screening tools are required for immediate versus future falls risk and are setting dependent.
期刊介绍:
Physical Therapy (PTJ) engages and inspires an international readership on topics related to physical therapy. As the leading international journal for research in physical therapy and related fields, PTJ publishes innovative and highly relevant content for both clinicians and scientists and uses a variety of interactive approaches to communicate that content, with the expressed purpose of improving patient care. PTJ"s circulation in 2008 is more than 72,000. Its 2007 impact factor was 2.152. The mean time from submission to first decision is 58 days. Time from acceptance to publication online is less than or equal to 3 months and from acceptance to publication in print is less than or equal to 5 months.