Is the Timed Up and Go test a useful predictor of risk of falls in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta- analysis

Table 2 Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for all included studies and for sensitivity analyses at a cut point of ≥13.5 seconds

Application of TUG test	No. of studies (patients)	Sensitivity (95% CI)	Variance logit sensitivity (95% CI)	Specificity (95% CI)	Variance logit specificity (95% CI)
All studies	10 (n = 2,314)	0.32 (0.14-0.57)	2.62 (0.94-7.29)	0.73 (0.51-0.88)	2.24 (0.76-6.63)
Studies where TUG was administered as fast as possible excluded	8 (n = 1,872)	0.44 (0.20-0.71)	2.52 (0.78-8.1)	0.71 (0.49-0.86)	1.7 (0.52-5.56)
Studies with duration of follow up > or < one year excluded	7 (n = 1,858)	0.33 (0.11-0.68)	3.58 (1.07-12.0)	0.70 (0.37-0.90)	3.33 (0.89-12.49)
Studies with selection bias excluded	6 (n = 1,253)	0.29 (0.10-0.60)	2.31 (0.56-9.56)	0.64 (0.20-0.93)	5.11 (0.86-30.47)
Studies with unclear/no details on index test excluded	6 (n = 1,636)	0.33 (0.17-0.54)	1.05 (0.30-3.63)	0.71 (0.58-0.81)	0.46 (0.12-1.65)
Studies with unclear/no definition ‘fall’ excluded	6 (n = 1,750)	0.28 (0.11-0.54)	1.82 (0.55-6.05)	0.81 (0.64-0.91)	1.10 (0.32-3.73)