Limits...
Prediction of Falls Using a 3-m Zigzag Walk Test.

Masuda S, Suganuma K, Kaneko C, Hoshina K, Suzuki T, Serita T, Sakakibara R - J Phys Ther Sci (2013)

Bottom Line: For the optimal classification of the fall and no-fall groups, cutoffs were calculated based on the ROC curve. [Results] The paired t-test results did not show differences between measurements, and the ICC was 0.97 in the fall, and 0.94 in the no-fall groups.The fall group needed significantly more time than the no-fall group to walk the 3-m zigzag.The time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag was extracted as a factor associated with fall history in multiple logistic regression analysis, with an odds ratio of 0.377.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Rehabilitation, Yamadakinen Hospital.

ABSTRACT
[Objective] This study investigated the applicability of a 3-m zigzag walk test for the prediction of falls and examined the relationships among fall history, the 3-m zigzag walk test, 10-m walk, and age. [Subjects] A total of 50 elderly individuals (23 males and 27 females) aged 65 and over, who were able to walk independently, were studied. [Methods] Four poles made of PET bottles were placed on a 3-m walkway in a straight line to create a zigzag course, and the time needed to walk it was measured. The best results on days 1 and 2 were adopted for the fall and no-fall groups, and intra-rater reproducibility was evaluated by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficient and performing the paired t-test. For comparison of the time needed to walk the zigzag between the 2 groups, the unpaired t-test was performed. The relationships between the times needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and 10 m and age were analyzed by calculating the correlation coefficient with fall history as the dependent variable, in multiple logistic regression analysis with the times needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and 10 m and age as independent variables. For the optimal classification of the fall and no-fall groups, cutoffs were calculated based on the ROC curve. [Results] The paired t-test results did not show differences between measurements, and the ICC was 0.97 in the fall, and 0.94 in the no-fall groups. The fall group needed significantly more time than the no-fall group to walk the 3-m zigzag. Further, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient revealed a significant correlation between the times needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and 10 m, while no correlation was observed between the time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and age (r=0.225). The time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag was extracted as a factor associated with fall history in multiple logistic regression analysis, with an odds ratio of 0.377. Its significance as a variable was p<0.01. In the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of the study model, the rate of discrimination between the predicted and actual values was 82.0%. [Conclusion] The cutoff time to walk the 3-m zigzag was estimated to be 10.5 seconds, suggesting that this model may be a valid index for the prediction of falls.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

ROC curve-based cutoffs. AUC=0.904
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3818753&req=5

fig_001: ROC curve-based cutoffs. AUC=0.904

Mentions: The Shapiro-Wilk test results showed that not all of the variables were a normallydistributed. The difference between the attributes of the fall and no-fall groups was slight(Table 1). No differences were observedbetween the t-test results on the first and second days in the fall or no-fall group (Table 2). Further, the ICC (1, 1) was 0.97 in thefalling, and 0.94 in the non-falling group. On comparison of the time needed 3ZWT betweenthe 2 groups, the falling group needed significantly more time than the non-falling group(p<0.01) (Table 3). The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient showed asignificant correlation, with r=0.553 between the times needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and 10m, and r=0.520 between the time needed to walk 10 m and age (p<0.01); no correlation wasobserved between the time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and age (r=0.225, p>0.01). Inmultiple logistic regression analysis, the time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag was extractedas a factor influencing fall history (c2 test for the study model: p<0.01).The odds ratio for the time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag was 0.377 (95% confidenceinterval: 0.218 to 0.652), with a significance as a variable of p<0.01. TheHosmer-Lemeshow test showed a result of p=497 for the study model, with a rate ofdiscrimination between predicted and actual values of 82.0%. Further, the ROC curve-basedcutoff was 10.5 seconds, and the area under the curve was 0.904. (Table 4, Fig. 1).


Prediction of Falls Using a 3-m Zigzag Walk Test.

Masuda S, Suganuma K, Kaneko C, Hoshina K, Suzuki T, Serita T, Sakakibara R - J Phys Ther Sci (2013)

ROC curve-based cutoffs. AUC=0.904
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3818753&req=5

fig_001: ROC curve-based cutoffs. AUC=0.904
Mentions: The Shapiro-Wilk test results showed that not all of the variables were a normallydistributed. The difference between the attributes of the fall and no-fall groups was slight(Table 1). No differences were observedbetween the t-test results on the first and second days in the fall or no-fall group (Table 2). Further, the ICC (1, 1) was 0.97 in thefalling, and 0.94 in the non-falling group. On comparison of the time needed 3ZWT betweenthe 2 groups, the falling group needed significantly more time than the non-falling group(p<0.01) (Table 3). The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient showed asignificant correlation, with r=0.553 between the times needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and 10m, and r=0.520 between the time needed to walk 10 m and age (p<0.01); no correlation wasobserved between the time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and age (r=0.225, p>0.01). Inmultiple logistic regression analysis, the time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag was extractedas a factor influencing fall history (c2 test for the study model: p<0.01).The odds ratio for the time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag was 0.377 (95% confidenceinterval: 0.218 to 0.652), with a significance as a variable of p<0.01. TheHosmer-Lemeshow test showed a result of p=497 for the study model, with a rate ofdiscrimination between predicted and actual values of 82.0%. Further, the ROC curve-basedcutoff was 10.5 seconds, and the area under the curve was 0.904. (Table 4, Fig. 1).

Bottom Line: For the optimal classification of the fall and no-fall groups, cutoffs were calculated based on the ROC curve. [Results] The paired t-test results did not show differences between measurements, and the ICC was 0.97 in the fall, and 0.94 in the no-fall groups.The fall group needed significantly more time than the no-fall group to walk the 3-m zigzag.The time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag was extracted as a factor associated with fall history in multiple logistic regression analysis, with an odds ratio of 0.377.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Rehabilitation, Yamadakinen Hospital.

ABSTRACT
[Objective] This study investigated the applicability of a 3-m zigzag walk test for the prediction of falls and examined the relationships among fall history, the 3-m zigzag walk test, 10-m walk, and age. [Subjects] A total of 50 elderly individuals (23 males and 27 females) aged 65 and over, who were able to walk independently, were studied. [Methods] Four poles made of PET bottles were placed on a 3-m walkway in a straight line to create a zigzag course, and the time needed to walk it was measured. The best results on days 1 and 2 were adopted for the fall and no-fall groups, and intra-rater reproducibility was evaluated by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficient and performing the paired t-test. For comparison of the time needed to walk the zigzag between the 2 groups, the unpaired t-test was performed. The relationships between the times needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and 10 m and age were analyzed by calculating the correlation coefficient with fall history as the dependent variable, in multiple logistic regression analysis with the times needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and 10 m and age as independent variables. For the optimal classification of the fall and no-fall groups, cutoffs were calculated based on the ROC curve. [Results] The paired t-test results did not show differences between measurements, and the ICC was 0.97 in the fall, and 0.94 in the no-fall groups. The fall group needed significantly more time than the no-fall group to walk the 3-m zigzag. Further, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient revealed a significant correlation between the times needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and 10 m, while no correlation was observed between the time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag and age (r=0.225). The time needed to walk the 3-m zigzag was extracted as a factor associated with fall history in multiple logistic regression analysis, with an odds ratio of 0.377. Its significance as a variable was p<0.01. In the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of the study model, the rate of discrimination between the predicted and actual values was 82.0%. [Conclusion] The cutoff time to walk the 3-m zigzag was estimated to be 10.5 seconds, suggesting that this model may be a valid index for the prediction of falls.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus