ArticleF1000Research2024
Dual tasking as a predictor of falls in post-stroke: A cross-sectional analysis comparing Walking While Talking versus Stops Walking While Talking.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dual-task assessments, including Walking While Talking (WWT) and Stops Walking While Talking (SWWT) tests, predict fall risk in stroke survivors. However, their effectiveness relative to established predictors, such as the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Falls Efficacy Scale (FES), remains unclear. This study evaluated the comparative predictive value of WWT and SWWT tests alongside BBS and FES among stroke survivors. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 68 stroke survivors who completed WWT-Simple (WWT-S), WWT-Complex (WWT-C), and SWWT, as well as the BBS and FES. Spearman correlations assessed relationships between balance, fear of falling, and dual-task performance. Logistic regression identified fall risk predictors, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis evaluated predictive accuracy. The study adhered to STROBE guidelines. Results: BBS scores were strongly negatively correlated with WWT-S (r = -0.734, p < 0.0001) and WWT-C (r = -0.737, p < 0.0001), indicating poorer balance with slower dual-task completion. Positive correlations were found between WWT-S and FES (r = 0.668, p < 0.0001) and WWT-C and FES (r = 0.610, p < 0.0001), linking slower completion times with higher fear of falling. SWWT was significantly negatively correlated with BBS (r = -0.625, p < 0.0001). WWT tests had higher sensitivity (97.8%) and specificity (99%) than SWWT (sensitivity = 68.9%; specificity = 91.3%). Logistic regression identified SWWT (Positive) as a significant predictor of fall risk (p = 0.009), and ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.911, indicating excellent predictive power. Conclusions: Findings highlight the superior predictive value of WWT tests over SWWT in assessing fall risk among stroke survivors. Incorporating dual-task measures into clinical practice may enhance fall risk evaluation, supporting targeted stroke rehabilitation.
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.