To assess fall risk in the elderly OPD patients using conventional fall risk tool and Kinesis QTUG device: A comparative study

Vivek Aggarwal , S. Shankar , Pradeep Behl , V. Vasdev , Y. Uday
{"title":"To assess fall risk in the elderly OPD patients using conventional fall risk tool and Kinesis QTUG device: A comparative study","authors":"Vivek Aggarwal ,&nbsp;S. Shankar ,&nbsp;Pradeep Behl ,&nbsp;V. Vasdev ,&nbsp;Y. Uday","doi":"10.1016/j.mjafi.2024.03.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Falls are common among the elderly population and are usually multifactorial. Most of the falls are preventable if the risk factors are identified early and addressed. The primary objective was to assess the agreement between the fall-risk assessment as measured by the digital sensor–based Kinesis Quantitative Timed Up and Go (QTUG) device and conventional Fall Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT) in elderly Indian population.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital of Western India. Conventional fall-risk assessment was done using the FRAT score and digital sensor–based fall risk was assessed using the Kinesis QTUG device. Agreement between both the fall-risk assessments was done using unweighted kappa.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The mean age was 68.54 (±2.62) years with females constituting 53.3%. The mean timed-up-and-go test score was 20.33(±7.7) seconds. A total of 253 falls were noted for 147 elderly individuals. Combined fall risk using the Kinesis QTUG device showed that 59.56% (218/366) elderly patients had a high fall risk, whereas the FRAT score showed high fall risk in only 1.36% (5/366) elderly patients. There was a poor agreement between the two tools with unweighted kappa of 0.634.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Prevalence of falls in elderly in the last year was 40% in our study. There was a poor agreement in fall-risk estimate using the Kinesis QTUG device and FRAT score with an unweighted kappa value of 0.634.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":39387,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal Armed Forces India","volume":"81 ","pages":"Pages S96-S101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal Armed Forces India","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377123724000388","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Falls are common among the elderly population and are usually multifactorial. Most of the falls are preventable if the risk factors are identified early and addressed. The primary objective was to assess the agreement between the fall-risk assessment as measured by the digital sensor–based Kinesis Quantitative Timed Up and Go (QTUG) device and conventional Fall Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT) in elderly Indian population.

Methods

The study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital of Western India. Conventional fall-risk assessment was done using the FRAT score and digital sensor–based fall risk was assessed using the Kinesis QTUG device. Agreement between both the fall-risk assessments was done using unweighted kappa.

Results

The mean age was 68.54 (±2.62) years with females constituting 53.3%. The mean timed-up-and-go test score was 20.33(±7.7) seconds. A total of 253 falls were noted for 147 elderly individuals. Combined fall risk using the Kinesis QTUG device showed that 59.56% (218/366) elderly patients had a high fall risk, whereas the FRAT score showed high fall risk in only 1.36% (5/366) elderly patients. There was a poor agreement between the two tools with unweighted kappa of 0.634.

Conclusions

Prevalence of falls in elderly in the last year was 40% in our study. There was a poor agreement in fall-risk estimate using the Kinesis QTUG device and FRAT score with an unweighted kappa value of 0.634.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用传统的跌倒风险工具和 Kinesis QTUG 设备评估门诊老年患者的跌倒风险:比较研究
背景:跌倒在老年人群中很常见,通常是多因素的。如果及早发现危险因素并加以处理,大多数跌倒是可以预防的。主要目的是评估基于数字传感器的kineesis定量定时起落(QTUG)装置测量的跌倒风险评估与传统的跌倒风险评估工具(FRAT)在印度老年人中的一致性。方法本研究在印度西部的一家三级医院进行。使用FRAT评分进行常规跌倒风险评估,使用kineesis QTUG装置评估基于数字传感器的跌倒风险。两种跌倒风险评估之间的一致性使用未加权kappa进行。结果患者平均年龄68.54(±2.62)岁,女性占53.3%。平均计时-出发测试分数为20.33(±7.7)秒。147名老年人共发生253次跌倒。结合Kinesis QTUG器械的跌倒风险评分显示,59.56%(218/366)的老年患者有较高的跌倒风险,而FRAT评分仅显示1.36%(5/366)的老年患者有较高的跌倒风险。两种工具之间的一致性较差,未加权kappa为0.634。结论近一年来老年人跌倒的发生率为40%。使用kineesis QTUG装置和FRAT评分进行跌倒风险评估的一致性较差,未加权kappa值为0.634。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Journal Armed Forces India
Medical Journal Armed Forces India Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
206
期刊介绍: This journal was conceived in 1945 as the Journal of Indian Army Medical Corps. Col DR Thapar was the first Editor who published it on behalf of Lt. Gen Gordon Wilson, the then Director of Medical Services in India. Over the years the journal has achieved various milestones. Presently it is published in Vancouver style, printed on offset, and has a distribution exceeding 5000 per issue. It is published in January, April, July and October each year.
期刊最新文献
Table of contents New minds, shared vision: Consolidating editorial expertise Analysis of direct costs of trans anal saline irrigation to pharmacological measures for bowel dysfunction Cytogenetic spectrum and clinical presentation of Klinefelter syndrome: A comprehensive study from South India Comparison of macular choroidal thickness in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome to healthy subjects using enhanced depth SD-OCT imaging
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1