改进的感觉相互作用与平衡临床测试(mCTSIB)中使用的泡沫垫类型对识别老年人跌倒史准确性的影响

Pub Date : 2020-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-07-25 DOI:10.1142/S1013702520500134
Rumpa Boonsinsukh, Bodin Khumnonchai, Vitoon Saengsirisuwan, Nithinun Chaikeeree
{"title":"改进的感觉相互作用与平衡临床测试(mCTSIB)中使用的泡沫垫类型对识别老年人跌倒史准确性的影响","authors":"Rumpa Boonsinsukh,&nbsp;Bodin Khumnonchai,&nbsp;Vitoon Saengsirisuwan,&nbsp;Nithinun Chaikeeree","doi":"10.1142/S1013702520500134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The type of foam pad used in the modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction and Balance (mCTSIB) influences the accuracy with which elderly fallers are identified. Two types of foam are commonly used in practice: Airex and Neurocom foam.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy with which elderly fallers can be identified when the Airex foam and Neurocom foam are used in the mCTSIB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred eighty-four elderly participants with a mean age of 69 years were classified into faller and nonfaller groups based on their 12-month fall history. Balance stability was measured under four conditions of the mCTSIB for 120 s each: standing on a floor or a foam pad with their eyes open or eyes closed. The time needed to maintain stability was measured by a stopwatch, and postural sway characteristics were measured using an acceleration-based system. Comparisons between groups were performed by two-way mixed ANOVA. The accuracy of differentiating elderly fallers from nonfallers with different foam types was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. The time to maintain stability under four conditions of the mCTSIB (composite score) and under two conditions on the foam (foam score) were used for the ROC analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that the nonfallers required more time to maintain stability and had a smaller sway area than the fallers ( <math><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0</mn> <mo>.</mo> <mn>001</mn></math> ). The foam led to a larger difference between groups, suggesting the use of foam in examining the risk of falls. The Airex and the Neurocom foam pads led to a large area under the curve (0.93 to 0.95) in identifying elderly fallers and nonfallers when the composite and foam scores were used. A cutoff score of 447/480 s for the composite score and 223/240 s for the foam score yielded a posttest accuracy of 88% to 89%, with a sensitivity of 0.80-0.92 and specificity of 0.88-0.95.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, Airex and Neurocom foam can be used interchangeably with guidance in the mCTSIB, as they led to the accurate identification of elderly fallers among older persons who could walk and live independently in the community.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1142/S1013702520500134","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of the type of foam pad used in the modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction and Balance (mCTSIB) on the accuracy in identifying older adults with fall history.\",\"authors\":\"Rumpa Boonsinsukh,&nbsp;Bodin Khumnonchai,&nbsp;Vitoon Saengsirisuwan,&nbsp;Nithinun Chaikeeree\",\"doi\":\"10.1142/S1013702520500134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The type of foam pad used in the modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction and Balance (mCTSIB) influences the accuracy with which elderly fallers are identified. Two types of foam are commonly used in practice: Airex and Neurocom foam.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy with which elderly fallers can be identified when the Airex foam and Neurocom foam are used in the mCTSIB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred eighty-four elderly participants with a mean age of 69 years were classified into faller and nonfaller groups based on their 12-month fall history. Balance stability was measured under four conditions of the mCTSIB for 120 s each: standing on a floor or a foam pad with their eyes open or eyes closed. The time needed to maintain stability was measured by a stopwatch, and postural sway characteristics were measured using an acceleration-based system. Comparisons between groups were performed by two-way mixed ANOVA. The accuracy of differentiating elderly fallers from nonfallers with different foam types was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. The time to maintain stability under four conditions of the mCTSIB (composite score) and under two conditions on the foam (foam score) were used for the ROC analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that the nonfallers required more time to maintain stability and had a smaller sway area than the fallers ( <math><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0</mn> <mo>.</mo> <mn>001</mn></math> ). The foam led to a larger difference between groups, suggesting the use of foam in examining the risk of falls. The Airex and the Neurocom foam pads led to a large area under the curve (0.93 to 0.95) in identifying elderly fallers and nonfallers when the composite and foam scores were used. A cutoff score of 447/480 s for the composite score and 223/240 s for the foam score yielded a posttest accuracy of 88% to 89%, with a sensitivity of 0.80-0.92 and specificity of 0.88-0.95.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, Airex and Neurocom foam can be used interchangeably with guidance in the mCTSIB, as they led to the accurate identification of elderly fallers among older persons who could walk and live independently in the community.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1142/S1013702520500134\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1142/S1013702520500134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/7/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S1013702520500134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

背景:在改良的感觉相互作用与平衡临床测试(mCTSIB)中使用的泡沫垫的类型影响识别老年跌倒者的准确性。在实践中常用的两种泡沫:Airex泡沫和Neurocom泡沫。目的:本研究的目的是评估在mCTSIB中使用Airex泡沫和Neurocom泡沫时识别老年跌倒者的准确性。方法:184名平均年龄69岁的老年人根据其12个月的跌倒史分为跌倒组和非跌倒组。在四种mCTSIB条件下测量平衡稳定性,每种条件120秒:站在地板上或泡沫垫上,睁开眼睛或闭上眼睛。通过秒表测量保持稳定所需的时间,并使用基于加速度的系统测量姿势摇摆特性。组间比较采用双向混合方差分析。采用受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)分析对不同泡沫类型的老年跌倒者和非跌倒者进行区分的准确性进行评估。采用四种条件下的mCTSIB(复合评分)和两种条件下的泡沫(泡沫评分)维持稳定的时间进行ROC分析。结果:未摔倒者比摔倒者需要更多的时间保持稳定,且摇摆面积较小(p < 0.05)。001)。泡沫导致两组之间的差异更大,这表明使用泡沫来检查跌倒的风险。当使用复合评分和泡沫评分时,Airex和Neurocom泡沫垫在识别老年跌倒者和非跌倒者方面的曲线下面积较大(0.93至0.95)。综合评分的临界值为447/480秒,泡沫评分的临界值为223/240秒,测试后准确度为88%至89%,灵敏度为0.80-0.92,特异性为0.88-0.95。结论:综上所述,在mCTSIB的指导下,Airex和Neurocom泡沫可以互换使用,因为它们可以准确识别社区中能够独立行走和生活的老年人中的老年跌倒者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
The effect of the type of foam pad used in the modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction and Balance (mCTSIB) on the accuracy in identifying older adults with fall history.

Background: The type of foam pad used in the modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction and Balance (mCTSIB) influences the accuracy with which elderly fallers are identified. Two types of foam are commonly used in practice: Airex and Neurocom foam.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy with which elderly fallers can be identified when the Airex foam and Neurocom foam are used in the mCTSIB.

Methods: One hundred eighty-four elderly participants with a mean age of 69 years were classified into faller and nonfaller groups based on their 12-month fall history. Balance stability was measured under four conditions of the mCTSIB for 120 s each: standing on a floor or a foam pad with their eyes open or eyes closed. The time needed to maintain stability was measured by a stopwatch, and postural sway characteristics were measured using an acceleration-based system. Comparisons between groups were performed by two-way mixed ANOVA. The accuracy of differentiating elderly fallers from nonfallers with different foam types was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. The time to maintain stability under four conditions of the mCTSIB (composite score) and under two conditions on the foam (foam score) were used for the ROC analysis.

Results: The results showed that the nonfallers required more time to maintain stability and had a smaller sway area than the fallers ( p < 0 . 001 ). The foam led to a larger difference between groups, suggesting the use of foam in examining the risk of falls. The Airex and the Neurocom foam pads led to a large area under the curve (0.93 to 0.95) in identifying elderly fallers and nonfallers when the composite and foam scores were used. A cutoff score of 447/480 s for the composite score and 223/240 s for the foam score yielded a posttest accuracy of 88% to 89%, with a sensitivity of 0.80-0.92 and specificity of 0.88-0.95.

Conclusion: In conclusion, Airex and Neurocom foam can be used interchangeably with guidance in the mCTSIB, as they led to the accurate identification of elderly fallers among older persons who could walk and live independently in the community.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
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:481959085
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