ArticleClinical interventions in aging2026
Incident Falls Across Concordant and Discordant Profiles of Concerns About Falling and Functional Mobility in Older Adults: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Concerns about falling and impaired functional mobility are established fall-risk indicators, but prospective fall risk is less clear when subjective concerns and objective mobility are discordant. We compared incident falls across joint profiles of concerns about falling and Timed Up and Go (TUG) performance, with particular attention to older adults with fast TUG performance and concerns versus those with slow TUG performance and no concerns. Methods: This one-year prospective cohort study included 2,445 community-dwelling adults aged 60-79 years in Zhejiang Province, China. TUG performance was classified as fast (<12 s) or slow (≥12 s), and concerns about falling were assessed using a single yes/no item. Crossing the two measures produced four psychophysical groups. Self-reported falls were recorded on daily calendars and ascertained monthly. Cox regression estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for time to first fall. Sensitivity analyses used the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), excluded participants with a baseline fall history, and applied the guideline-aligned TUG >15 s threshold. Results: During follow-up, 232 participants (9.5%) reported at least one fall; 2,420 (98.98%) completed follow-up. Single-item concerns (adjusted HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.23-2.09) and slow TUG performance (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.10-1.92) were independently associated with incident falls. Using the slow-TUG/no-concern group as the direct reference, the fast-TUG/concern group did not differ significantly (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.72-1.63), whereas the slow-TUG/concern group had a higher hazard (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.29-2.97). The discordant groups also did not differ after excluding baseline fallers (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62-1.52) or after additionally applying the TUG >15 s threshold (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46-1.63). Conclusion: Concerns about falling and TUG performance provided complementary information about subsequent falls. The two discordant profiles were not significantly separated. These findings support considering concerns alongside mobility performance rather than relying on either measure alone.
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.