SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PMC

PREDICTING FALLS IN PARKINSON'S DISEASE

Innovation in aging · 2019-11-01

Open accessAbstractOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Abstract People with Parkinson’s disease (PD) have a proclivity to falling. Early identification and treatment of PD patients with a high risk of falling is important to decrease morbidity, mortality, and improve quality of life. We compared functional performance tests and balance tests in people with PD to determine which tests predict fallers. Sixty participants were recruited, mean age 71.4 y.o. (range 55 – 89), 43 were male, and 34 were identified as fallers (defined as having fallen at least twice in the past year). A logistic regression model was built to determine which functional performance and balance tests would best predict fallers. Predictors in the model included Hoehn and Yahr stage of disease, Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Barthel Index, Timed Up and Go (TUG), Tinetti Balance Assessment, Berg Balance Scale, and results from a force plate that recorded sway in both static and dynamic conditions (open eyes and closed eyes). Correlations among predictor variables were assessed for multicollinearity and were less than 0.8. Using both a forward and backward stepwise approach, the best prediction model included Tinetti Balance Total score only. ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of 74% with a cutoff of 13 which had a diagnostic accuracy of 68.8% with an 83% specificity and 56% sensitivity. Given that the cost of treatment for an injurious fall far exceeds preventative measures a clinician may opt to use a cut off of 14 when using the Tinetti Balance Assessment given an 70% specificity and 68% sensitivity.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.