Literature DB >> 33352293

Stepping impairment and falls in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of volitional and reactive step tests.

Yoshiro Okubo1, Daniel Schoene2, Maria Jd Caetano3, Erika M Pliner4, Yosuke Osuka5, Barbara Toson6, Stephen R Lord3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically examine stepping performance as a risk factor for falls. More specifically, we examined (i) if step tests can distinguish fallers from non-fallers and (ii) the type of step test (e.g. volitional vs reactive stepping) that is required to distinguish fallers from non-fallers. DATA SOURCE: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and reference lists of included articles. STUDY SELECTION: Cross-sectional and cohort studies that assessed the association between at least one step test and falls in older people (age ≥ 60 and/or mean age of 65).
RESULTS: A meta-analysis of 61 studies (n = 9536) showed stepping performance was significantly worse in fallers compared to non-fallers (Cohen'sd 0.56, 95 % CI 0.48 to 0.64, p < 0.001, I2 66 %). This was the case for both volitional and reactive step tests. Twenty-three studies (n = 3615) were included in a diagnostic meta-analysis that showed that step tests have moderate sensitivity (0.70, 95 % CI 0.62 to 0.77), specificity (0.68, 95 % CI 0.58 to 0.77) and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) (0.75, 95 % CI 0.59 to 0.86) in discriminating fallers from non-fallers.
CONCLUSIONS: This large systematic review demonstrated that both volitional and reactive stepping impairments are significant fall risk factors among older adults. Step tests can identify fallers from non-fallers with moderate accuracy.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accidental falls; Aged; Meta-analysis; Stepping; Systematic review

Year:  2020        PMID: 33352293     DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2020.101238

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ageing Res Rev        ISSN: 1568-1637            Impact factor:   10.895


  5 in total

1.  Examining Different Motor Learning Paradigms for Improving Balance Recovery Abilities Among Older Adults, Random vs. Block Training-Study Protocol of a Randomized Non-inferiority Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Hadas Nachmani; Inbal Paran; Moti Salti; Ilan Shelef; Itshak Melzer
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 3.169

2.  Feasibility of Cognitive-Motor Exergames in Geriatric Inpatient Rehabilitation: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study.

Authors:  Patrizia Altorfer; Manuela Adcock; Eling D de Bruin; Florian Graf; Eleftheria Giannouli
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 5.750

Review 3.  Perturbations during Gait: A Systematic Review of Methodologies and Outcomes.

Authors:  Zoe Taylor; Gregory S Walsh; Hannah Hawkins; Mario Inacio; Patrick Esser
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 3.847

4.  Feasibility and Safety of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation in Frail Older People-A Pilot Trial.

Authors:  Joerg Bloeckl; Sebastian Raps; Michael Weineck; Robert Kob; Thomas Bertsch; Wolfgang Kemmler; Daniel Schoene
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  Which Exercise Interventions Can Most Effectively Improve Reactive Balance in Older Adults? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Youngwook Kim; Michael N Vakula; David A E Bolton; Christopher J Dakin; Brennan J Thompson; Timothy A Slocum; Masaru Teramoto; Eadric Bressel
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 5.750

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.