ABSTRACT
Antecedentes y Objetivo: Las pruebas funcionales son un eje fundamental en la evaluación del riesgo de caídas de los adultos mayores (AM), no obstante, muchas de ellas carecen de valor asociativo con el real estado funcional del AM, historia clínica y co-morbilidades. El objetivo de esta investigación fue analizar pruebas funcionales y fuerza de prensión entre AM caedores y no caedores. Métodos: Estudio analítico con diseño transversal. Se realizaron tres pruebas funcionales (Timed Up & Go, Five Times Sit to Stand Test y Prueba de Estación Unipodal) en 148 AM independientes (Media = 74,8 SD = 7,2), 83 no caedores y 58 con antecedentes de caídas accidentales en el último año. Se consideró además la fuerza de prensión y perímetro abdominal. Resultados y Discusión: Las pruebas funcionales presentaron valor asociativo en AM con antecedentes de caídas (p < 0,05). La fuerza de prensión tuvo correlación estadísticamente significativa entre ambos grupos. Las pruebas funcionales entonces, pueden discriminar el riesgo de caída en AM independientes y con co-morbilidades similares. Conclusión: Las tres pruebas funcionales aplicadas muestran valores asociativos en AM caedores. La fuerza de prensión presentó valor asociativo con las pruebas analizadas.
Background and Purpose: Functional tests are a fundamental axis in assessing the risk of falls in older adults. However, many of them lack associative value with the actual functional status of the older adults, medical history, and comorbidities. Methods: Analytical study with cross-sectional design. Three functional tests were performed (Timed Up & Go, Five Times Sit to Stand Test, and Unipodal Station Test) in 148 independent older adults (mean = 74.8 SD = 7.2), 83 non-fallers, and 58 with self-reported accidental falls in the last year. Other factors, such as grip strength and abdominal circumference, were considered. Results and Discussion: The functional tests presented associative value in older adults with a history of falls (p < 0.05). The grip strength has a statistically significant correlation between both groups. Functional tests can discriminate the risk of falls in independent older adults and those with similar comorbidities. Conclusion: The three functional tests applied show associative values in falling older adults. The grip strength presented associative value with the functional tests.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Functional tests are a fundamental axis in assessing the risk of falls in older adults. However, many of them lack associative value with the actual functional status of the older adults, medical history, and comorbidities. METHODS: Analytical study with cross-sectional design. Three functional tests were performed (Timed Up & Go, Five Times Sit to Stand Test, and Unipodal Station Test) in 148 independent older adults (mean = 74.8 SD = 7.2), 83 non-fallers, and 58 with self-reported accidental falls in the last year. Other factors, such as grip strength and abdominal circumference, were considered. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The functional tests presented associative value in older adults with a history of falls (p < 0.05). The grip strength has a statistically significant correlation between both groups. Functional tests can discriminate the risk of falls in independent older adults and those with similar comorbidities. CONCLUSION: The three functional tests applied show associative values in falling older adults. The grip strength presented associative value with the functional tests.
Subject(s)
Accidental Falls , Geriatric Assessment , Hand Strength , Humans , Accidental Falls/statistics & numerical data , Cross-Sectional Studies , Aged , Male , Female , Hand Strength/physiology , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Aged, 80 and over , Risk Factors , Risk Assessment , Reference ValuesABSTRACT
Background: Timed Up and Go (TUG) is used to assess the risk of falling of older people. Aim: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of TUG as a predictor of falls in older adults. Material and methods: TUG was measured in 148 independent community-dwelling older adults aged 75 ± 7 years (85% women). Of these, 58 reported having a fall in the previous year. Analysis of the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curve was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of common cut-off times used in clinical practice. The times required to perform the TUG as quickly as possible (best fitted time) and at the usual pace (common time) were registered. Results: Participants with a history of falls had higher TUG times than their counterparts who did not fall (10.9 ± 3.9 and 9.2 ± 2.6 s, respectively). By age groups, only in the 60-69 age group the differences between those who fell and those who did not, were statistically significant (p < 0.05). A cut-off of 9s generates the better sensitivity and specificity for the test (0.60 and 0.57, respectively). For 60-69 age group the best cut-off time is 8.2s, with an increase in sensitivity and specificity to 0.73 and 0.68, respectively. Conclusions: There were differences in TUG values between participants with and without a history of falls. Determining TUG cut-off values by age groups improves the sensitivity and specificity of the test, especially in the 60-69 age range.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Accidental Falls , ROC Curve , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Timed Up and Go (TUG) is used to assess the risk of falling of older people. AIM: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of TUG as a predictor of falls in older adults. MATERIAL AND METHODS: TUG was measured in 148 independent community-dwelling older adults aged 75 ± 7 years (85% women). Of these, 58 reported having a fall in the previous year. Analysis of the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curve was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of common cut-off times used in clinical practice. The times required to perform the TUG as quickly as possible (best fitted time) and at the usual pace (common time) were registered. RESULTS: Participants with a history of falls had higher TUG times than their counterparts who did not fall (10.9 ± 3.9 and 9.2 ± 2.6 s, respectively). By age groups, only in the 60-69 age group the differences between those who fell and those who did not, were statistically significant (p < 0.05). A cut-off of 9s generates the better sensitivity and specificity for the test (0.60 and 0.57, respectively). For 60-69 age group the best cut-off time is 8.2s, with an increase in sensitivity and specificity to 0.73 and 0.68, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were differences in TUG values between participants with and without a history of falls. Determining TUG cut-off values by age groups improves the sensitivity and specificity of the test, especially in the 60-69 age range.
