社区居住老年人常用平衡测量工具诊断准确性的比较

Q4 Medicine
Mahsa Meimandi, G. Taghizadeh, Bahman Moulodi, A. Azad
{"title":"社区居住老年人常用平衡测量工具诊断准确性的比较","authors":"Mahsa Meimandi, G. Taghizadeh, Bahman Moulodi, A. Azad","doi":"10.18502/jmr.v17i1.11310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Balance screening has been identified as a major predictor of falls in the elderly. The current study compares the diagnostic accuracy of various balance instruments in community-dwelling older adults. \nMaterials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 145 older adults were recruited. The Berg balance scale (BBS), Fullerton advanced balance (FAB) scale, dynamic gait index (DGI), performance-oriented mobility assessment (POMA), timed up and go (TUG) test, gait speed, step length, step test, and single item question were administered. The receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was used to calculate diagnostic accuracy. \nResults: All single-item tools had moderate diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve [AUC]=0.76-0.89) and all multi-item tools had high diagnostic accuracy (AUC=0.91-0.95) when using the recommended cut-off point of 45 for BBS. All multi-item tools maintained high to moderate diagnostic accuracy (AUC=0.85-1.00) in all thresholds while using BBS severity cut-off points. The FAB scale showed the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC=0.95) among all assessment tools. Single-item question scores (Wald=22.61, df=1, P=0.0001, Exp(B)=8.82) were significant as covariates in the regression model. \nConclusion: For older adults with or without a history of falling, the FAB scale demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy. Along with single-item tools, the FAB scale may be a preferred multi-item tool.","PeriodicalId":34281,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the DiagnosticAccuracy of Common Balance Measurement Tools in Community-Dwelling OlderAdults\",\"authors\":\"Mahsa Meimandi, G. Taghizadeh, Bahman Moulodi, A. Azad\",\"doi\":\"10.18502/jmr.v17i1.11310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Balance screening has been identified as a major predictor of falls in the elderly. The current study compares the diagnostic accuracy of various balance instruments in community-dwelling older adults. \\nMaterials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 145 older adults were recruited. The Berg balance scale (BBS), Fullerton advanced balance (FAB) scale, dynamic gait index (DGI), performance-oriented mobility assessment (POMA), timed up and go (TUG) test, gait speed, step length, step test, and single item question were administered. The receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was used to calculate diagnostic accuracy. \\nResults: All single-item tools had moderate diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve [AUC]=0.76-0.89) and all multi-item tools had high diagnostic accuracy (AUC=0.91-0.95) when using the recommended cut-off point of 45 for BBS. All multi-item tools maintained high to moderate diagnostic accuracy (AUC=0.85-1.00) in all thresholds while using BBS severity cut-off points. The FAB scale showed the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC=0.95) among all assessment tools. Single-item question scores (Wald=22.61, df=1, P=0.0001, Exp(B)=8.82) were significant as covariates in the regression model. \\nConclusion: For older adults with or without a history of falling, the FAB scale demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy. Along with single-item tools, the FAB scale may be a preferred multi-item tool.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Modern Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Modern Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmr.v17i1.11310\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Modern Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmr.v17i1.11310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:平衡筛查已被确定为老年人跌倒的主要预测指标。目前的研究比较了社区居住的老年人各种平衡仪器的诊断准确性。材料和方法:在这项横断面研究中,招募了145名老年人。采用Berg平衡量表(BBS)、Fullerton高级平衡量表(FAB)、动态步态指数(DGI)、性能导向活动能力评估(POMA)、计时行走(TUG)测试、步态速度、步长、步长测试和单项问题。采用受试者工作特征曲线分析计算诊断准确率。结果:所有单项工具的诊断准确率均为中等(曲线下面积[AUC]=0.76-0.89),所有多项目工具在使用推荐的45截断点时均具有较高的诊断准确率(AUC=0.91-0.95)。当使用BBS严重性分界点时,所有多项目工具在所有阈值中都保持高到中等的诊断准确性(AUC=0.85-1.00)。在所有评估工具中,FAB量表的诊断准确率最高(AUC=0.95)。单项问题得分(Wald=22.61, df=1, P=0.0001, Exp(B)=8.82)作为回归模型的协变量具有显著性。结论:对于有或没有跌倒史的老年人,FAB量表显示出最高的诊断准确性。除了单项目工具外,FAB量表可能是首选的多项目工具。
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 DiagnosticAccuracy of Common Balance Measurement Tools in Community-Dwelling OlderAdults
Introduction: Balance screening has been identified as a major predictor of falls in the elderly. The current study compares the diagnostic accuracy of various balance instruments in community-dwelling older adults. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 145 older adults were recruited. The Berg balance scale (BBS), Fullerton advanced balance (FAB) scale, dynamic gait index (DGI), performance-oriented mobility assessment (POMA), timed up and go (TUG) test, gait speed, step length, step test, and single item question were administered. The receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was used to calculate diagnostic accuracy. Results: All single-item tools had moderate diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve [AUC]=0.76-0.89) and all multi-item tools had high diagnostic accuracy (AUC=0.91-0.95) when using the recommended cut-off point of 45 for BBS. All multi-item tools maintained high to moderate diagnostic accuracy (AUC=0.85-1.00) in all thresholds while using BBS severity cut-off points. The FAB scale showed the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC=0.95) among all assessment tools. Single-item question scores (Wald=22.61, df=1, P=0.0001, Exp(B)=8.82) were significant as covariates in the regression model. Conclusion: For older adults with or without a history of falling, the FAB scale demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy. Along with single-item tools, the FAB scale may be a preferred multi-item tool.
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
Journal of Modern Rehabilitation
Journal of Modern Rehabilitation Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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