IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234904.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of a robotic multifactorial fall-risk predictive model: A one-year prospective study in community-dwelling older adults

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Cella
  • Alice De Luca
  • Valentina Squeri
  • Sara Parodi
  • Francesco Vallone
  • Angela Giorgeschi
  • Barbara Senesi
  • Ekaterini Zigoura
  • Katerin Leslie Quispe Guerrero
  • Giacomo Siri
  • Lorenzo De Michieli
  • Jody Saglia
  • Carlo Sanfilippo
  • Alberto Pilotto

Abstract

Background: Falls in the elderly are a major public health concern because of their high incidence, the involvement of many risk factors, the considerable post-fall morbidity and mortality, and the health-related and social costs. Given that many falls are preventable, the early identification of older adults at risk of falling is crucial in order to develop tailored interventions to prevent such falls. To date, however, the fall-risk assessment tools currently used in the elderly have not shown sufficiently high predictive validity to distinguish between subjects at high and low fall risk. Consequently, predicting the risk of falling remains an unsolved issue in geriatric medicine. This one-year prospective study aims to develop and validate, by means of a cross-validation method, a multifactorial fall-risk model based on clinical and robotic parameters in older adults. Methods: Community-dwelling subjects aged ≥ 65 years were enrolled. At the baseline, all subjects were evaluated for history of falling and number of drugs taken daily, and their gait and balance were evaluated by means of the Timed “Up & Go” test (TUG), Gait Speed (GS), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA). They also underwent robotic assessment by means of the hunova robotic device to evaluate the various components of balance. All subjects were followed up for one-year and the number of falls was recorded. The models that best predicted falls—on the basis of: i) only clinical parameters; ii) only robotic parameters; iii) clinical plus robotic parameters—were identified by means of a cross-validation method. Results: Of the 100 subjects initially enrolled, 96 (62 females, mean age 77.17±.49 years) completed the follow-up and were included. Within one year, 32 participants (33%) experienced at least one fall (“fallers”), while 64 (67%) did not (“non-fallers”). The best classifier model to emerge from cross-validated fall-risk estimation included eight clinical variables (age, sex, history of falling in the previous 12 months, TUG, Tinetti, SPPB, Low GS, number of drugs) and 20 robotic parameters, and displayed an area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.72–0.90). Notably, the model that included only three of these clinical variables (age, history of falls and low GS) plus the robotic parameters showed similar accuracy (ROC AUC 0.80, 95% CI: 0.71–0.89). In comparison with the best classifier model that comprised only clinical parameters (ROC AUC: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55–0.79), both models performed better in predicting fall risk, with an estimated Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI) of 0.30 and 0.31 (p = 0.02), respectively, and an estimated Integrated Discrimination Improvement (IDI) of 0.32 and 0.27 (p

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Cella & Alice De Luca & Valentina Squeri & Sara Parodi & Francesco Vallone & Angela Giorgeschi & Barbara Senesi & Ekaterini Zigoura & Katerin Leslie Quispe Guerrero & Giacomo Siri & Lorenzo De, 2020. "Development and validation of a robotic multifactorial fall-risk predictive model: A one-year prospective study in community-dwelling older adults," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234904
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234904
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234904
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234904&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234904?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierpaolo Palumbo & Luca Palmerini & Stefania Bandinelli & Lorenzo Chiari, 2015. "Fall Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly Living in the Community: Can We Do Better?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Spencer C. H. Kuo & Pao-Jen Kuo & Cheng-Shyuan Rau & Shao-Chun Wu & Shiun-Yuan Hsu & Ching-Hua Hsieh, 2017. "Hyponatremia Is Associated with Worse Outcomes from Fall Injuries in the Elderly," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-11, April.
    2. Gabriela Almeida & Jorge Bravo & Hugo Folgado & Hugo Rosado & Felismina Mendes & Catarina Pereira, 2019. "Reliability and construct validity of the stepping-forward affordance perception test for fall risk assessment in community-dwelling older adults," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Carla Guerreiro & Marta Botelho & Elia Fernández-Martínez & Ana Marreiros & Sandra Pais, 2022. "Determining the Profile of People with Fall Risk in Community-Living Older People in Algarve Region: A Cross-Sectional, Population-Based Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-10, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234904. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.