Table 11 Summary table of the chair stand test as a falls assessment tool
Review | Review characteristics | Risk of bias assessment | Summary of key findings | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ambrose [19] | Narrative No study number or characteristics to extract | High | No extractable data | Unclear |
Scott [35] | Systematic review with no meta | high | Sensitivity NS specificity NS IIR 0.63 In one study in long-term care. | Unclear |
Chen-Ju Fu [39] | Meta-analysis | High | 7805 subjects revealed significant difference in the complete time of the 5-time sit-to-stand test between the two groups (mean difference [faller – non-faller] = 1.90 seconds [95% CI: 0.98–2.82], p < 0.001,. However, inconsistent results with high heterogeneity (I2 = 87%) was also detected amongst the included studies, with only one study didn’t favor the non-faller group. | Inconsistent |
Lusardi [9] | Meta-analysis (n = 3) Community-dwelling | Unclear | For those requiring 12 seconds or more to complete the 5 times sit-to-stand test (5TSTS) (positive test), the PoTP = 41%. For those able to complete this task in less than 12 seconds (negative test), the PoTP = 20%. These findings are derived from data in 1 Level I72 and 2 Level II57,77 prospective studies with a combined sample of 3319 participants. | Favourable |
Chantanachai [38] | Meta-analysis | Low | No meta-analysis data | Unclear |