Validity of temporo-spatial characteristics of gait as an index for fall risk screening in community-dwelling older people.
Takahiro Baba, Masahide Watanabe, Hirofumi Ogihara and 5 others
PMID 36866012WHAT IT FOUND
Gait speed under 0.83 m/s and a heel strike angle under 15.8 degrees helped identify older adults who had fallen in the past year.
These simple walking metrics from portable sensors may screen for fall risk, though the test missed many non-fallers.
Key findings
01Gait velocity and heel strike angles were significantly lower in participants with a history of falls compared to those without.
02A gait velocity cut-off of 0.83 m/s identified fallers with 85% sensitivity but only 56% specificity.
03A left heel strike angle cut-off of 15.8 degrees identified fallers with 79% sensitivity and 63% specificity.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
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 study included only people who could already walk independently, so the results do not apply to those who use walkers or have more severe mobility issues. The specificity of the screening tests was low, meaning many participants who had not fallen were still identified as being at risk. The sample size was small (50 people), and the groups were defined by self-reported falls in the past year, which can be subject to memory errors. Both groups had gait speeds considered high-risk in previous literature, suggesting the participants were already a high-risk population overall.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The funding source had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or writing. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use these gait metrics as a definitive diagnostic tool to rule out fall risk. The low specificity means the test incorrectly identifies many non-fallers as being at risk, so relying on it alone could lead to unnecessary interventions or misclassification of patient status.