SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Timed Up-and-Go as a predictor of fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis in a population of over 1.6 million people.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence from prospective cohort studies assessing the Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) test as association of fracture risk in older people, and to quantify the association through meta-analysis using hazard ratios (HR). Methods: Two authors independently conducted systematic searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, and the Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. MEDLINE was accessed through PubMed and was therefore not treated as a separate database. The Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection was included because it may capture studies addressing behavioral, psychological, and functional factors relevant to fracture risk. Eligible cohort studies were those that examined the association between slower TUG performance, reflected by longer completion time in seconds, and all-cause fractures in older people. HR estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis after assessment of between-study heterogeneity. Results: Two authors independently extracted the data. Six studies with 1,639,397 participants. A low TUG score was associated with hip fractures from all causes (HR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.20-2.22), as well as with overall fractures (femur, spine lumbar, pelvis, forearm and proximal humerus; HR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.05-1.80). However, a modest but statistically significant association was observed for vertebral fractures (HR = 1.11; 95% CI = 1.03-1.20). Conclusion: Poor performance on the TUG test is associated with hip fractures and overall fractures in older people. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251244709, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420251244709).
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.