Relationship between Timed Up and Go performance and quantitative biomechanical measures of balance.
Prasad Tendolkar, Oluwaseun Ibironke, Giorgia Marchesi and 5 others
PMID 38566622WHAT IT FOUND
Slower Timed Up and Go times in chronic TBI were linked to longer reactive balance recovery times.
This association was strongest in those with TUG scores of 10 seconds or more, suggesting the test reflects reactive balance deficits in more impaired individuals.
Key findings
01Reactive balance oscillation time was the only biomechanical variable significantly associated with TUG scores in the full TBI cohort.
02In the subgroup with TUG scores of 10 seconds or more, both reactive balance oscillation time and dynamic balance trunk oscillation were significantly associated with TUG performance.
03The regression model predicted TUG times with an error of about 2 seconds, which is larger than the minimum clinically important difference of 1.6 seconds for TBI.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was small (19 TBI participants), which limited the power of subgroup analyses and model validation. The predictive model's error margin (approx. 2 seconds) exceeded the minimum clinically important difference for TBI (1.6 seconds), meaning it is not precise enough for individual clinical decision-making. Model performance dropped significantly at the second visit, suggesting poor generalisation over time or instability in the relationship. The study used a cross-sectional design, so it cannot determine if changes in balance biomechanics cause changes in TUG performance over time.
Declared interests
The research was supported by the New Jersey Commission on Brain Injury Research and the New Jersey Health Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use this model to predict an individual patient's TUG score from their balance lab data. The prediction error was larger than the clinically important difference, and the model's accuracy worsened when tested on follow-up data.