ArticleSports (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Evaluating the Test-Retest Reliability of Five Low-Cost, Perturbation-Based Functional Tests for Balance Recovery in Older Adults.
Article in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFalls are a leading cause of injury and disability among older adults. Conventional clinical tests typically do not challenge reactive postural responses to unexpected perturbations, which limits their ability to comprehensively assess fall risk.
objectiveTo examine the test-retest reliability of five pragmatic, low-cost, perturbation-based tests designed to identify compensatory stepping strategies in older adults, and to explore their concurrent validity against established clinical assessments.
methodsFifty-seven older adults (44 community-dwelling and 13 institutionalized) completed five compensatory stepping tests (obstacle crossing, forward push, backward pull, and lateral pulls to the right and left) and conventional functional tests [Timed Up and Go (TUG), 30 s Chair Stand, and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)] on two separate days, ten days apart. Cohen's weighted kappa (Kw) quantified test-retest reliability, and Pearson's correlation coefficients assessed relationships with conventional tests.
resultsObstacle (Kw = 0.443), forward push (Kw = 0.518), and backward pull (Kw = 0.438) demonstrated moderate agreement overall. Lateral pull tests showed poor reliability. Nevertheless, moderate correlations were observed between some perturbation tests (particularly obstacle and backward pull) and standard clinical measures, especially TUG and SPPB.
conclusionsAlthough reliability was limited-most notably for lateral perturbations-specific tests showed meaningful associations with validated functional assessments. Pending methodological refinements, these low-cost tools may offer useful insights for initial fall-risk screening.
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.