Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26865881›Full record

ArticleEuropean review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity2016

Kinect-based choice reaching and stepping reaction time tests for clinical and in-home assessment of fall risk in older people: a prospective study.

Andreas Ejupi, Yves J Gschwind, Matthew Brodie, Wolfgang L Zagler, Stephen R Lord, Kim Delbaere

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andreas EjupiAssistive Healthcare Information Technology Group, Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria ; Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria ; Neuroscience Research Australia, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Yves J GschwindNeuroscience Research Australia, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Matthew BrodieNeuroscience Research Australia, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Wolfgang L ZaglerVienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria.
Stephen R LordNeuroscience Research Australia, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Kim DelbaereNeuroscience Research Australia, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuick protective reactions such as reaching or stepping are important to avoid a fall or minimize injuries. We developed Kinect-based choice reaching and stepping reaction time tests (Kinect-based CRTs) and evaluated their ability to differentiate between older fallers and non-fallers and the feasibility of administering them at home.

methodsA total of 94 community-dwelling older people were assessed on the Kinect-based CRTs in the laboratory and were followed-up for falls for 6 months. Additionally, a subgroup (n = 20) conducted the Kinect-based CRTs at home. Signal processing algorithms were developed to extract features for reaction, movement and the total time from the Kinect skeleton data.

resultsNineteen participants (20.2 %) reported a fall in the 6 months following the assessment. The reaction time (fallers: 797 ± 136 ms, non-fallers: 714 ± 89 ms), movement time (fallers: 392 ± 50 ms, non-fallers: 358 ± 51 ms) and total time (fallers: 1189 ± 170 ms, non-fallers: 1072 ± 109 ms) of the reaching reaction time test differentiated well between the fallers and non-fallers. The stepping reaction time test did not significantly discriminate between the two groups in the prospective study. The correlations between the laboratory and in-home assessments were 0.689 for the reaching reaction time and 0.860 for stepping reaction time.

conclusionThe study findings indicate that the Kinect-based CRT tests are feasible to administer in clinical and in-home settings, and thus represents an important step towards the development of sensor-based fall risk self-assessments. With further validation, the assessments may prove useful as a fall risk screen and home-based assessment measures for monitoring changes over time and effects of fall prevention interventions.

Indexed as

Accidental fallsFall risk assessmentsMicrosoft kinectOlder adultsReachingReaction timeSensorsStepping

Identifiers

PMID26865881
PMCPMC4748330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.