ArticleClinical interventions in aging2024
Risk Assessment of Falls Among Older Adults Based on Probe Reaction Time During Water-Carrying Walking.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Risk Assessment of Falls Among Older Adults Based on Probe Reaction Time During Water-Carrying Walking [Letter].Clinical interventions in aging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Falls are a significant factor affecting the health of older adults and are closely related to cognitive function. Adopting an effective method to evaluate the risk of falls in older adults is essential for improving their healthcare. This study combined cognitive and motor functions to determine a reliable probe reaction time during water-carrying walking. Patients and Methods: We divided 100 community-dwelling older adults (aged 65 years and over) into two groups according to their fall history: the fall group and no-fall group. All subjects were tested on fall tasks using the timed up-and-go (TUG) test, 10-m walk timing test, trail marking test part-A (TMT-A), and water-carrying walking probe reaction time (P-RT). Results: The fall group showed slower walking speeds and longer TUG, TMT-A, and P-RT times than the no-fall group. In the logistic regression analysis with falls as the dependent variable, water-carrying walking P-RT was identified as a useful factor, and the cut-off value of the water-carrying walking P-RT was 454 ms, which was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic curve. Conclusion: The P-RT of the water-carrying walking test was found to be credible and useful for evaluating the fall risk in older adults. Therefore, it is recommended that the P-RT-based dual-task be used as a predictive indicator of future falls in the older population.
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.