Boon-Chong Kwok1, Ross A Clark2, Yong-Hao Pua3. 1. Clinical Services (Collaborative Care), National Healthcare Group Polyclinics, 3 Fusionpolis Link, Nexus@one-north, Singapore. Electronic address: kwokboonchong@gmail.com. 2. School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: ross.clark@acu.edu.au. 3. Department of Physiotherapy, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore. Electronic address: puayonghao@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Wii Balance Board has received increasing attention as a balance measurement tool; however its ability to prospectively predict falls is unknown. This exploratory study investigated the use of the Wii Balance Board and other clinical-based measures for prospectively predicting falls among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Seventy-three community-dwelling men and women, aged 60-85years were followed-up over a year for falls. Standing balance was indexed by sway velocities measured using the Wii Balance Board interfaced with a laptop. Clinical-based measures included Short Physical Performance Battery, gait speed and Timed-Up-and-Go test. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the ability of the Wii Balance Board measure to complement the TUG test in fall screening. FINDINGS: Individually, the study found Wii Balance Board anteroposterior (odds ratio 1.98, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.40, P=0.01) and mediolateral (odds ratio 2.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.13, p=0.03) sway velocity measures predictive of prospective falls. However, when each velocity measure was adjusted with body mass index and Timed-Up-and-Go, only anteroposterior sway velocity was predictive of prospective falls (odds ratio 2.21, 95% CI 1.18 to 4.14). A faster anteroposterior velocity was associated with increased odds of falling. Area-under-the-curves for Wii Balance Board sway velocities were 0.67 and 0.71 for anteroposterior and mediolateral respectively. INTERPRETATION: The Wii Balance Board-derived anteroposterior sway velocity measure could complement existing clinical-based measures in predicting future falls among community-dwelling older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number: ACTRN12610001099011.
BACKGROUND: The Wii Balance Board has received increasing attention as a balance measurement tool; however its ability to prospectively predict falls is unknown. This exploratory study investigated the use of the Wii Balance Board and other clinical-based measures for prospectively predicting falls among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Seventy-three community-dwelling men and women, aged 60-85years were followed-up over a year for falls. Standing balance was indexed by sway velocities measured using the Wii Balance Board interfaced with a laptop. Clinical-based measures included Short Physical Performance Battery, gait speed and Timed-Up-and-Go test. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the ability of the Wii Balance Board measure to complement the TUG test in fall screening. FINDINGS: Individually, the study found Wii Balance Board anteroposterior (odds ratio 1.98, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.40, P=0.01) and mediolateral (odds ratio 2.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.13, p=0.03) sway velocity measures predictive of prospective falls. However, when each velocity measure was adjusted with body mass index and Timed-Up-and-Go, only anteroposterior sway velocity was predictive of prospective falls (odds ratio 2.21, 95% CI 1.18 to 4.14). A faster anteroposterior velocity was associated with increased odds of falling. Area-under-the-curves for Wii Balance Board sway velocities were 0.67 and 0.71 for anteroposterior and mediolateral respectively. INTERPRETATION: The Wii Balance Board-derived anteroposterior sway velocity measure could complement existing clinical-based measures in predicting future falls among community-dwelling older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number: ACTRN12610001099011.
Authors: Thanwarat Chantanachai; Morag E Taylor; Stephen R Lord; Jasmine Menant; Kim Delbaere; Perminder S Sachdev; Nicole A Kochan; Henry Brodaty; Daina L Sturnieks Journal: PeerJ Date: 2022-05-30 Impact factor: 3.061
Authors: Lara Muralt; Michael Furian; Mona Lichtblau; Sayaka S Aeschbacher; Ross A Clark; Bermet Estebesova; Ulan Sheraliev; Nuriddin Marazhapov; Batyr Osmonov; Maya Bisang; Stefanie Ulrich; Tsogyal D Latshang; Silvia Ulrich; Talant M Sooronbaev; Konrad E Bloch Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Olivier Van Hove; Romain Pichon; Pauline Pallanca; Ana Maria Cebolla; Sarah Noel; Véronique Feipel; Gaël Deboeck; Bruno Bonnechère Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2022-07-31
Authors: Santiago J Saldana; Anthony P Marsh; W Jack Rejeski; Jack K Haberl; Peggy Wu; Scott Rosenthal; Edward H Ip Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 4.458