Matheus Vieira Rosa1, Monica Rodrigues Perracini2, Natalia Aquaroni Ricci3. 1. Master's and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo - UNICID, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: matheusvr.fisio@hotmail.com. 2. Master's and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo - UNICID, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: monica.perracini@unicid.edu.br. 3. Master's and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo - UNICID, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: natalia_ricci@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the evidence about the usefulness of the Functional Reach Test to evaluate balance and falls risk; to verify the Functional Reach Test assessment method and other variables that could interfere in its results; and to establish normative data for older adults. DATA SOURCES: Manual and electronic searches (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL, AgeLine and PsycINFO) were conducted with no language restrictions and published since 1990. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies about the Functional Reach Test in older adults with no specific health condition were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies and a third reviewer provided consensus. The studies methodological quality was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies were submitted to critical analysis and meta-analysis. RESULTS: 40 studies were selected (8 prospective and 32 cross-sectional). 33 studies used the Functional Reach to assess balance and 21 studies the falls risk. The meta-analysis of Functional Reach normative data was 26.6 cm [95%CI: 25.14; 28.06] for community-dwelling older adults (n = 21 studies) and was 15.4 cm [95%CI: 13.47; 17.42] for non-community older adults (n = 5 studies), with statistics differences between settings. Functional Reach Test performance was found to decrease with age. Sex and prospective history of falls did not influence the test results. Methodological quality analysis determined high to low risk of bias of the studies. CONCLUSION: This review revealed that the method of assessment and data of the Functional Reach Test varied greatly. Different values should be used for community- and non-community-dwelling older adults.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the evidence about the usefulness of the Functional Reach Test to evaluate balance and falls risk; to verify the Functional Reach Test assessment method and other variables that could interfere in its results; and to establish normative data for older adults. DATA SOURCES: Manual and electronic searches (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL, AgeLine and PsycINFO) were conducted with no language restrictions and published since 1990. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies about the Functional Reach Test in older adults with no specific health condition were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies and a third reviewer provided consensus. The studies methodological quality was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies were submitted to critical analysis and meta-analysis. RESULTS: 40 studies were selected (8 prospective and 32 cross-sectional). 33 studies used the Functional Reach to assess balance and 21 studies the falls risk. The meta-analysis of Functional Reach normative data was 26.6 cm [95%CI: 25.14; 28.06] for community-dwelling older adults (n = 21 studies) and was 15.4 cm [95%CI: 13.47; 17.42] for non-community older adults (n = 5 studies), with statistics differences between settings. Functional Reach Test performance was found to decrease with age. Sex and prospective history of falls did not influence the test results. Methodological quality analysis determined high to low risk of bias of the studies. CONCLUSION: This review revealed that the method of assessment and data of the Functional Reach Test varied greatly. Different values should be used for community- and non-community-dwelling older adults.
Authors: Rúbia Rayanne Souto Braz; Shirley Lima Campos; Débora Wanderley Villela; Gabriel Barreto Antonino; Pâmella Karolline Araújo Batista; Marcelo Renato Guerino; François Talles Medeiros Rodrigues; Kennedy Freitas Pereira Alves; João Victor Torres Duarte; Diana de Andrade Silva; Daniel Florentino Lima; Arthur Felipe Freire da Silva; Karla Cybele Vieira de Oliveira; Edy Kattarine Dias Dos Santos; Wagner Souza Leite; Larissa Coutinho de Lucena; Ana Paula de Lima Ferreira; Kátia Monte-Silva; Maria das Graças Rodrigues de Araújo; Redha Taiar Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2022-02-08
Authors: Manuel M Montero-Odasso; Nellie Kamkar; Frederico Pieruccini-Faria; Abdelhady Osman; Yanina Sarquis-Adamson; Jacqueline Close; David B Hogan; Susan Winifred Hunter; Rose Anne Kenny; Lewis A Lipsitz; Stephen R Lord; Kenneth M Madden; Mirko Petrovic; Jesper Ryg; Mark Speechley; Munira Sultana; Maw Pin Tan; N van der Velde; Joe Verghese; Tahir Masud Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: D Beck Jepsen; K Robinson; G Ogliari; M Montero-Odasso; N Kamkar; J Ryg; E Freiberger; T Masud Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 4.070
Authors: Antony G Philippe; Aurélie Goncalves; Christophe Martinez; Maxime Deshayes; Elodie Charbonnier Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 4.614