Gilles Allali1, Emmeline I Ayers2, Joe Verghese2. 1. Department of Neurology, Division of Cognitive & Motor Aging, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY, USA; Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: gilles.allali@einstein.yu.edu. 2. Department of Neurology, Division of Cognitive & Motor Aging, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Though gait evaluation is recommended as a core component of fall risk assessments, a systematic examination of the predictive validity of different modes of gait assessments for falls is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare three commonly employed gait assessments - self-reported walking difficulties, clinical evaluation, and quantitative gait - to predict incident falls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 380 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 76.5 ± 6.8 y, 55.8% female) were evaluated with three independent gait assessment modes: patient-centered, quantitative, and clinician-diagnosed. The association of these three gait assessment modes with incident falls was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 23.2% of participants self-reported walking difficulties, 15.5% had slow gait, and 48.4% clinical gait abnormalities. 30.3% had abnormalities on only one assessment, whereas only 6.3% had abnormalities on all three. Over a mean follow-up of 24.2 months, 137 participants (36.1%) fell. Those with at least two abnormal gait assessments presented an increased risk of incident falls (hazard ratio (HR): 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-2.49) in comparison to the 169 participants without any abnormalities on any of the three assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple modes of gait evaluation provide a more comprehensive mobility assessment than only one assessment alone, and better identify incident falls in older adults.
BACKGROUND: Though gait evaluation is recommended as a core component of fall risk assessments, a systematic examination of the predictive validity of different modes of gait assessments for falls is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare three commonly employed gait assessments - self-reported walking difficulties, clinical evaluation, and quantitative gait - to predict incident falls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 380 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 76.5 ± 6.8 y, 55.8% female) were evaluated with three independent gait assessment modes: patient-centered, quantitative, and clinician-diagnosed. The association of these three gait assessment modes with incident falls was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 23.2% of participants self-reported walking difficulties, 15.5% had slow gait, and 48.4% clinical gait abnormalities. 30.3% had abnormalities on only one assessment, whereas only 6.3% had abnormalities on all three. Over a mean follow-up of 24.2 months, 137 participants (36.1%) fell. Those with at least two abnormal gait assessments presented an increased risk of incident falls (hazard ratio (HR): 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-2.49) in comparison to the 169 participants without any abnormalities on any of the three assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple modes of gait evaluation provide a more comprehensive mobility assessment than only one assessment alone, and better identify incident falls in older adults.
Authors: Matteo Cesari; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Brenda W H J Penninx; Barbara J Nicklas; Eleanor M Simonsick; Anne B Newman; Frances A Tylavsky; Jennifer S Brach; Suzanne Satterfield; Douglas C Bauer; Marjolein Visser; Susan M Rubin; Tamara B Harris; Marco Pahor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Riitta Leskinen; Tiina Laatikainen; Markku Peltonen; Esko Levälahti; Riitta Antikainen Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Thomas O Mera; Danielle E Filipkowski; David E Riley; Christina M Whitney; Benjamin L Walter; Steven A Gunzler; Joseph P Giuffrida Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Joe Verghese; Cedric Annweiler; Emmeline Ayers; Nir Barzilai; Olivier Beauchet; David A Bennett; Stephanie A Bridenbaugh; Aron S Buchman; Michele L Callisaya; Richard Camicioli; Benjamin Capistrant; Somnath Chatterji; Anne-Marie De Cock; Luigi Ferrucci; Nir Giladi; Jack M Guralnik; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Roee Holtzer; Ki Woong Kim; Paul Kowal; Reto W Kressig; Jae-Young Lim; Susan Lord; Kenichi Meguro; Manuel Montero-Odasso; Susan W Muir-Hunter; Mohan L Noone; Lynn Rochester; Velandai Srikanth; Cuiling Wang Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Maartje H de Groot; Jos P C M van Campen; Nienke M Kosse; Oscar J de Vries; Jos H Beijnen; Claudine J C Lamoth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marcelo de Maio Nascimento; Élvio Rúbio Gouveia; Adilson Marques; Bruna R Gouveia; Priscila Marconcin; Cíntia França; Andreas Ihle Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-01 Impact factor: 4.614