Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36993044›Full record

ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2022

Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment test and Timed Up and Go test as predictors of falls in the elderly - A cross-sectional study.

Varatharajan Sakthivadivel, Jeganathan Geetha, Archana Gaur, Ariyanachi Kaliappan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07296653 (Efficacy of Prolotherapy in Acupoints in Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT07296653 early_phase1recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy of Prolotherapy in Acupoints in Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain (cLBP) - A Randomized Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensRan2025 to 2027Enrolled60ConditionsChronic Non-specific Low Back PainArmsDextrose 15% and lidocaine 1% infiltration, Lidocaine 1% infiltration
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Frailty: An overview.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Varatharajan SakthivadivelDepartment of General Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bibinagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Jeganathan GeethaDepartment of General Medicine, Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Maduranthgam, Tamil Nadu, India.
Archana GaurDepartment of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bibinagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Ariyanachi KaliappanDepartment of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bibinagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · INInstitute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Falls are common in the elderly and frequently have serious consequences, which lead to physical and psychological complications. Assessment of fall risk in the elderly is performed by using functional assessment tools that assess the muscle strength, balance, functional mobility, and gait. Timed Up and Go test (TUG) assesses functional mobility and the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment test (POMA) assesses balance, postural control, and gait. Aim: This study compares the TUG test and POMA test in fall prediction among elderly patients. Materials and Methods: Patients with acute illness, acute painful lower limb conditions, dementia, severe depression, and those who are not willing were excluded from the study. Patient demographic data, co-morbidities, habits, and risk factors such as a previous history of falls, arthritis, depression, and vision impairment were noted. Gait and balance were assessed by the TUG and POMA tests. TUG and POMA were compared with the patients with a history of falls. Results: The mean age of participants was 70.79 ± 5.38 years. The females (57.6%) were more than the males. Hypertension was the commonest co-morbidity (54.4%). Out of 340 subjects, 105 subjects had a history of falls. The sensitivity of the TUG and POMA tests was 76.2 and 69.5%, respectively, and the specificity was 91.1 and 89.8%, respectively. The Kappa values were 0.680 and 0.606, respectively. POMA ( Conclusion: TUG is a useful measure for determining the risk of falling in older persons.

Indexed as

ElderlyfallsPOMATUG

Identifiers

PMID36993044
PMCPMC10041282
OpenAlexW4313208717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.