ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Association and predictive value analysis for mobility assessments and concerns about falling on falls in community-dwelling older adults: a prospective cohort study in China.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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
backgroundA series of mobility and concerns about falling measurement instruments are recommended by guidelines for fall prevention in older adults for fall risk assessment. However, evidence regarding their value in evaluating and predicting fall risk is inconsistent. This study aims to examine the associations and predictive ability between these assessments and falls in community-dwelling older adults in China.
methodsMobility of 2544 participants aged [Formula: see text]60 years was assessed at baseline using the Timed Up and Go (TUG), Eyes-Closed Unipedal Stance Test (ECUST), 30-second Chair Stand (30s-CS), and concerns about falling were assessed by the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I). Fall events were followed for nearly 12 months. Associations of mobility assessments and concerns about falling with falls were examined using Cox proportional hazard and restricted cubic spline regression. The C-statistic, net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were employed to evaluate the predictive value of mobility assessments, concerns about falling, and additional risk factors.
resultsDuring the follow-up period, 236 (9.28%) participants reported at least one fall. Each standard deviation increase in TUG time was associated with a 1.154-fold greater risk of falls (95% CI: 1.035-1.286). Compared with participants with FES-I score ≤ 45, those with FES-I score > 45 had a 1.346-fold greater fall risk, with marginal statistical significance(95% CI: 0.995-1.822, P = 0.054). The ECUST and the 30s-CS were not associated with fall risk in the overall sample. Nonlinear relationship was not observed between mobility assessments and fall risk. And the non-linear correlation was marginally significant between FES-I and fall risk (P = 0.056). The predictive accuracy of the TUG and FES-I used in isolation or in combination was poor, with C statistics ranging from 0.545 to 0.568. The predictive performance was significantly enhanced but still insufficient after baseline characteristics were incorporated into the model, with a C-statistic of 0.631 (95% CI: 0.594-0.667), an IDI of 0.013 (95% CI: 0.010-0.040) and a NRI of 0.178 (95% CI: 0.111-0.260).
conclusionThe TUG test is an useful tool for evaluating fall risk in community-dwelling older adults. The FES-I has potential to identify older adults at an elevated risk of fall with a cut-off value of 45. However, their ability to predict falls is limited. Incorporating additional fall-related factors improves the predictive performance but is still inadequate.
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.