Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32584912›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Development and validation of a robotic multifactorial fall-risk predictive model: A one-year prospective study in community-dwelling older adults.

Alberto Cella, Alice De Luca, Valentina Squeri, Sara Parodi, Francesco Vallone, Angela Giorgeschi, Barbara Senesi, Ekaterini Zigoura, Katerin Leslie Quispe Guerrero, Giacomo Siri and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. An early feasibility study for neurological devices: The ARCTRAN study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Use of Static Posturography Cut-Off Scores to Identify the Risk of Falling in Older Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alberto CellaDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, EO Galliera Hospital, Genova, Italy.
Alice De LucaMovendo Technology Srl, Genova, Italy.
Valentina SqueriMovendo Technology Srl, Genova, Italy.
Sara ParodiMovendo Technology Srl, Genova, Italy.
Francesco ValloneDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, EO Galliera Hospital, Genova, Italy.
Angela GiorgeschiDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, EO Galliera Hospital, Genova, Italy.
Barbara SenesiDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, EO Galliera Hospital, Genova, Italy.
Ekaterini ZigouraDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, EO Galliera Hospital, Genova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5825-8520
Katerin Leslie Quispe GuerreroDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, EO Galliera Hospital, Genova, Italy.
Giacomo SiriDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, EO Galliera Hospital, Genova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8006-0668
Lorenzo De MichieliItalian Institute of Technology (IIT), Genova, Italy.
Jody SagliaMovendo Technology Srl, Genova, Italy.
Carlo SanfilippoMovendo Technology Srl, Genova, Italy.
Alberto PilottoDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, EO Galliera Hospital, Genova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8615-1955
Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera · ITItalian Institute of Technology · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFalls in the elderly are a major public health concern because of their high incidence, the involvement of many risk factors, the considerable post-fall morbidity and mortality, and the health-related and social costs. Given that many falls are preventable, the early identification of older adults at risk of falling is crucial in order to develop tailored interventions to prevent such falls. To date, however, the fall-risk assessment tools currently used in the elderly have not shown sufficiently high predictive validity to distinguish between subjects at high and low fall risk. Consequently, predicting the risk of falling remains an unsolved issue in geriatric medicine. This one-year prospective study aims to develop and validate, by means of a cross-validation method, a multifactorial fall-risk model based on clinical and robotic parameters in older adults.

methodsCommunity-dwelling subjects aged ≥ 65 years were enrolled. At the baseline, all subjects were evaluated for history of falling and number of drugs taken daily, and their gait and balance were evaluated by means of the Timed "Up & Go" test (TUG), Gait Speed (GS), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA). They also underwent robotic assessment by means of the hunova robotic device to evaluate the various components of balance. All subjects were followed up for one-year and the number of falls was recorded. The models that best predicted falls-on the basis of: i) only clinical parameters; ii) only robotic parameters; iii) clinical plus robotic parameters-were identified by means of a cross-validation method.

resultsOf the 100 subjects initially enrolled, 96 (62 females, mean age 77.17±.49 years) completed the follow-up and were included. Within one year, 32 participants (33%) experienced at least one fall ("fallers"), while 64 (67%) did not ("non-fallers"). The best classifier model to emerge from cross-validated fall-risk estimation included eight clinical variables (age, sex, history of falling in the previous 12 months, TUG, Tinetti, SPPB, Low GS, number of drugs) and 20 robotic parameters, and displayed an area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.72-0.90). Notably, the model that included only three of these clinical variables (age, history of falls and low GS) plus the robotic parameters showed similar accuracy (ROC AUC 0.80, 95% CI: 0.71-0.89). In comparison with the best classifier model that comprised only clinical parameters (ROC AUC: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55-0.79), both models performed better in predicting fall risk, with an estimated Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI) of 0.30 and 0.31 (p = 0.02), respectively, and an estimated Integrated Discrimination Improvement (IDI) of 0.32 and 0.27 (p<0.001), respectively. The best model that comprised only robotic parameters (the 20 parameters identified in the final model) achieved a better performance than the clinical parameters alone, but worse than the combination of both clinical and robotic variables (ROC AUC: 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.83).

conclusionA multifactorial fall-risk assessment that includes clinical and hunova robotic variables significantly improves the accuracy of predicting the risk of falling in community-dwelling older people. Our data suggest that combining clinical and robotic assessments can more accurately identify older people at high risk of falls, thereby enabling personalized fall-prevention interventions to be undertaken.

Indexed as

RoboticsAccidental FallsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansIncidenceIndependent LivingMalePostural BalanceProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentWalking Speed

Identifiers

PMID32584912
PMCPMC7316263
OpenAlexW3037883004

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.