ArticleScientific reports2024
Optimal cutoff score of the circular tandem walk test for determining the risk of falls in older community-dwelling individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients with chronic diabetes may have a physical performance decline, which significantly increases the risk of falling. The study aimed to assess the validity of the Circular Tandem Walk Test (CTWT) in determining fall risk among older community-dwelling Thais with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This is a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 71 older participants with T2DM from various communities. The participants were divided into "faller" (who had experienced one or more fall events) and "non-faller" groups based on 6-month fall history data. They were then interviewed about their fear of falling (FOF) using a single question and the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I), followed by the CTWT. Thirty-five participants reported having fallen in the past six months. Significant differences were in the fallers and non-fallers CTWT, FOF, and FES-I scores (p < 0.001). CTWT results were significantly correlated with FOF (r
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.