↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Assessment of the risk of falling with the use of timed up and go test in the elderly with lower extremity osteoarthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
Title
Assessment of the risk of falling with the use of timed up and go test in the elderly with lower extremity osteoarthritis
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s86001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewa Zasadzka, Adrianna Maria Borowicz, Magdalena Roszak, Mariola Pawlaczyk

Abstract

Falling in the elderly results in a significant number of admissions to hospitals and long-term care facilities, especially among patients with lower extremity osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of the study was to assess the risk of falling in adults older than 60 years with OA using timed up and go (TUG) test. A total of 187 patients (aged >60 years) were enrolled in the study. The assessment included: basic activities of daily living (ADLs), lower extremity strength with the use of the 30-second chair stand test (30 CST), and assessment of the risk of falling (TUG test). Pain intensity was evaluated with the numeric rating scale (NRS). The TUG test results were significantly better in younger OA patients (aged 60-69 years), as compared with their older peers (aged 70-79 years; P<0.01) and the oldest group (aged >80 years; P<0.001). Also, the 30 CST results were significantly higher in younger OA patients (P<0.05). Subjects older than 80 years had a significantly worse ADL score (P<0.05 and P<0.001). Pain complaints were reported significantly more frequently by women than men (P<0.05). A correlation between age and the TUG test score (r=0.412; P<0.0004) as well as between the TUG test and the 30 CST scores (r=0.7368; P=0.000) was detected. In the group with the TUG test score of <13.5 seconds, the 30 CST (P<0.0001) and ADL (P<0.003) results were significantly better. A comparison of fallers vs nonfallers revealed that the number of falls was significantly higher in the group of subjects who scored ≥13.5 when compared to <13.5 (P=0.003). Fallers significantly more often reported pain (P<0.0001), whereas nonfallers had significantly better 30 CST results (P=0.0003). Elderly population with OA is at an elevated risk of falling, which increases with progressing age, pain, and muscle weakness. It seems prudent to identify individuals at a high risk of falling and to propose an adequate treatment for them.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 19%
Student > Bachelor 24 17%
Researcher 7 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 4%
Professor 4 3%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 53 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 31 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 14%
Sports and Recreations 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 61 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2015.
All research outputs
#22,760,732
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,779
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,289
of 276,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#54
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.