Functional Reach Test, Single-Leg Stance Test, and Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment for the Prediction of Falls in Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to systematically review the existing literature on the falls-related diagnostic test properties of the Functional Reach Test (FRT), single-leg stance test (SLST), and Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) in older adults across settings and patient populations. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were searched (inception-July 2020). Inclusion criteria were participants aged 60 years or more, prospectively recorded falls, and the reporting of falls-related predictive validity. Manuscripts not published in English were excluded. Methodological quality of reporting was assessed using the Tooth Scale. RESULTS: Of 1071 studies reviewed, 21 met the inclusion criteria (12 POMA, 8 FRT, 6 SLST). Seven studies (58.3%) used a modified version of the POMA, and 3 (37.5%) used a modified FRT. For the outcome of any fall, the respective ranges of sensitivity and specificity were 0.076 to 0.615 and 0.695 to 0.97 for the POMA, 0.27 to 0.70 and 0.52 to 0.83 for the modified POMA, 0.73 and 0.88 for the FRT, 0.47 to 0.682 and 0.59 to 0.788 for the modified FRT, and 0.51 and 0.61 for the SLST in community-dwelling older adults. For the SLST, the sensitivity and specificity for recurrent falls in the community-dwelling setting were 0.33 and 0.712, respectively. CONCLUSION: All the clinical tests of balance demonstrated an overall low diagnostic accuracy and a consistent inability to correctly identify fallers. None of these tests individually are able to predict future falls in older adults. Future research should develop a better understanding of the role that clinical tests of balance play in the comprehensive assessment of falls risk in older adults. IMPACT: Neither the FRT, SLST, nor POMA alone shows consistent evidence of being able to correctly identify fallers across fall types, settings, or older adult subpopulations. These clinical tests of balance cannot substitute a comprehensive falls risk assessment and thus should be incorporated in practice solely to identify and track balance impairment in older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".