ArticlePeerJ2026
Diagnostic accuracy of the Timed Up and Go and Five Times Sit-to-Stand tests for fall risk screening in community-dwelling older adults in northern Thailand: a retrospective study.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Falls are a major public health concern among older adults, yet simple and context-specific screening tools remain under-validated in Thai settings. This study aimed to evaluate the discriminative performance of the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and the Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST) for fall risk screening. Methods: A total of 113 community-dwelling older adults in Chiang Rai, Thailand, were assessed using TUG, FTSST, and the Thai Fall Risk Assessment Tool (Thai-FRAT). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and logistic regression were used to examine diagnostic accuracy and determine optimal age-specific cut-off values. Results: The TUG showed good discriminative performance (AUC = 0.827), whereas the FTSST demonstrated more modest discrimination (AUC = 0.705). Each one-second increase in TUG and FTSST times was associated with higher odds of fall risk (TUG: OR = 1.16, 95% CI [1.07-1.27]; FTSST: OR = 1.11, 95% CI [1.02-1.20]). Discriminative performance was higher in adults aged 60-74 years (TUG AUC = 0.871; FTSST AUC = 0.828) than in those aged ≥ 75 years (0.756 and 0.590, respectively). Overall cut-off values were 17.16 seconds for the TUG and 15.46 seconds for the FTSST, with lower thresholds in younger-old adults and higher thresholds in the oldest-old. Conclusion: The TUG demonstrated robust discriminative performance for community-based fall risk screening, whereas the FTSST may be more suitable as a complementary tool. Incorporating age-specific cut-off values may enhance interpretation and support early identification and prevention of falls among older adults.
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.