Observational studyBMC geriatrics2022
Evaluating the discriminatory power of the velocity field diagram and timed-up-and-go test in determining the fall status of community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05821816 (Evaluation of the Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on Neurodegeneration and Neuromotor Recovery on Post-stroke Patients. a Pilot Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Developing an HIV-specific falls risk prediction model with a novel clinical index: a systematic review and meta-analysis method.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Association Between Physical Performance, Gait Variability, and Fall Risk in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Predictive Validity of Step-Width Variability for Screening of Fall Risk.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Association Between Timed Up-and-Go Test and Future Changes in the Frailty Status in a Longitudinal Study of Japanese Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Clinical interventions in aging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews demonstrated that gait variables are the most reliable predictors of future falls, yet are rarely included in fall screening tools. Thus, most tools have higher specificity than sensitivity, hence may be misleading/detrimental to care. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the validity, and reliability of the velocity field diagram (VFD -a gait analytical tool), and the Timed-up-and-go test (TUG)-commonly used in Nigeria as fall screening tools, compared to a gold standard (known fallers) among community-dwelling older adults.
methodThis is a cross-sectional observational study of 500 older adults (280 fallers and 220 non-fallers), recruited by convenience sampling technique at community health fora on fall prevention. Participants completed a 7-m distance with the number of steps and time it took determined and used to compute the stride length, stride frequency, and velocity, which regression lines formed the VFD. TUG test was simultaneously conducted to discriminate fallers from non-fallers. The cut-off points for falls were: TUG times ≥ 13.5 s; VFD's intersection point of the stride frequency, and velocity regression lines (E
resultsThe VFD versus TUG sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 71%, 27%, 55%, and 42%, versus 39%, 59%, 55%, and 43%, respectively. The ROC's AUC were 0.74(95%CI:0.597,0.882, p = 0.001) for the VFD. The optimal categorizations for discrimination between fallers/non-fallers were ≥ 3.78 versus ≤ 3.78 for VFD (fallers versus non-fallers prevalence is 60.71% versus 95.45%, respectively), with a classification accuracy or prediction rate of 0.76 unlike TUG with AUC = 0.53 (95% CI:0.353,0.700, p = 0.762), and a classification accuracy of 0.68, and optimal characterization of ≥ 12.81 s versus ≤ 12.81 (fallers and non-fallers prevalence = 92.86% versus 36.36%, respectively).
conclusionThe VFD demonstrated a fair discriminatory power and greater reliability in identifying fallers than the TUG, and therefore, could replace the TUG as a primary tool in screening those at risk of falls.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.