Skip to main content

Table 11 Summary table of the chair stand test as a falls assessment tool

From: Predicting falls in older adults: an umbrella review of instruments assessing gait, balance, and functional mobility

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
  1. CI Confidence interval, LR Likelihood Ratio, n number of included studies, NS Not Specified. IIR Inter-rater reliability,*This study did meta-analyses, but not timed chair stand, which was only reported in one paper