ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
The Value of Cognitive and Physical Function Tests in Predicting Falls in Older Adults: A Prospective Study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical importance of simple muscular fitness tests to predict long-term health conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 94 cohort studies.British journal of sports medicine · 2026Pooled it
- The role of dominant handgrip strength in fall occurrence possibility and frequency.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Self-awareness of falls and its influencing factors in older patients with cardiometabolic multimorbidity: a latent profile analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Risk of fall in patients with chronic kidney disease: results from the China health and retirement longitudinal study (CHARLS).BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Previous studies suggested that physical and cognitive function can be indicators to assess the risk of falls in the elderly. Various tests are widely used in geriatric clinical studies as assessment tools of physical and cognitive function. However, large sample studies comparing the fall predictive value of these tests are still sparse. This study was conducted to investigate the value of cognitive and physical function tests in predicting the risk of subsequent falls in the elderly, with the overarching goal of providing more evidence on fall-risk assessment. Methods: The current study was based on the data of respondents aged 60 and above from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). Data from the 2015 CHARLS national survey were used as the baseline data, and the fall data in 2018 were used as the follow-up data. Physical function tests included balance, walking speed, the five times sit-to-stand test (FTSST), and grip strength. The value of cognitive and physical function tests in predicting falls was evaluated by logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: The incidence of falls among the 4,857 subjects included in this study was 20.86%. Results showed that cognition (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.98), the FTSST (OR = 3.51, 95% CI: 1.66-7.46), and grip strength (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03) were independent predictors of falls in the full sample after adjusting for various confounders. Notably, the above tests showed better predictive value for falls for the oldest-old (≥ 80 years) subjects. Conclusion: Overall, results showed that grip strength, the FTSST, and cognition tests are simple and practicable tools for identifying individuals at higher risk of falls in the community. Moreover, the fall predictive performance of physical and cognitive function tests was age-dependent, with a higher predictive value in older adults aged 80 and above.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.