Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary table of the Timed Up and Go 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 Summary of key findings Interpretation
Ambrose [19] Narrative
No details on characteristics
High No data to extract Unclear
Lee [29] Systematic review without meta-analysis
(n = 4)
Mixed settings
High Community dwelling older people (n = 2):
- TUG > 12.3 s demonstrated 83.3% sensitivity, 96.6% specificity, 95.9% positive predictive value, 85.8% negative predictive value.
- TUG> 20 s 90% sensitivity, 22% specificity, 45% positive predictive value, 75% negative predictive value
Acute Inpatient rehabilitation (n = 1):
- AUC 0.58 (95% CI 0.53–0.63)
Outpatient stroke clinics (n = 1):
- 63% sensitivity, 58% specificity, 58% positive predictive value, AUC = 0.70 (95% CI 0.60–0.81)
Favourable for community-dwelling older adults
Nakamura [20] Narrative
(n = not reported)
No details on characteristics
High TUG was reported as one of the most commonly used tests, but do not report predictive ability. Not favourable
Park [12] Meta-analysis
(n = 5, 427 participants)
Community-dwelling
High Pooled sensitivity was 0.76 (95% CI 0.68–0.83), and article heterogeneity was 0.0% (χ2 = 2.20, P = .85). Pooled specificity was 0.49 (95% CI 0.43–0.54) and heterogeneity among the articles was high, 94.8% (χ2 = 95.87, P < .001). The sROC AUC was 0.80 (SE = 0.04) Favourable
Schoene [13] Meta-analysis
(n = 53)
Mixed settings
High Ddiagnostic accuracy poor to moderate across studies and settings.
Pooled estimate of mean difference between fallers and non-fallers in the healthy, higher-functioning samples was 0.63 seconds (95% CI 0.14–1.12, P = .01), and the heterogeneity was moderate (v2 = 12.6,(df) = 6,P = .05;I2 = 52%)
Pooled estimate of mean difference between fallers and non-fallers in studies that included a mix of higher- and lower-functioning people living independently was 2.05 seconds (95% CI 1.47–2.62,P < .001), and the heterogeneity was substantial (v2 = 50.7,df = 20,P < .001;I2 = 61%)
Pooled estimate of the mean difference
between fallers and non-fallers in institutional settings was 3.59 seconds (95% CI 2.18–4.99,P < .001), and there was no sign of heterogeneity (v2 = 7.7,df = 8,P = .47;I2 = 0%)
Not favourable/ favourable for less healthy, lower-functioning groups
Scott [35] Systematic review without meta-analysis
(n = 2)
Mixed settings
High Community (n = 2):
IRR = 0.90
IRR = 0.56
Long term care (n = 1): IRR = 0.56
Inconsistent
Beauchet [24] Systematic review without meta-analysis
(n = 11)
Mixed settings
Unclear Retrospective studies (n = 7):
TUG associated with past falls history in all 7 studies
Prospective studies (n = 4):
3 with no significant association to falls and no significant prediction of falls (2 inpatient, 1 community))
1 with positive association and prediction of falls in community dwelling
Inconsistent
Dolatabadi [26] Systematic review without meta-analysis
(n = 4)
Older adults with diagnosis of dementia
Unclear Successful predictor of future falls (n = 2)
No predictive value (n = 2)
Inconsistent
Lusardi [9] Meta-analysis
(n = 12)
Community-dwelling
Unclear TUG > 7.4 s positive likelihood ratio 1.6, negative likelihood ratio 0.7, posttest probability with a positive test 41%, posttest probability with a negative test 23%
TUG > 12 s positive likelihood ratio 2.1, negative likelihood ratio 0.8, posttest probability with a positive test 47%, posttest probability with a negative test 25%
Favourable
Barry [10] Meta-analysis
(n = 10)
Community-dwelling
Low Logistic regression analysis indicated that the TUG score is not a significant predictor of falls (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.02, p = 0.05). Not favourable
Chantanachai [38] Meta-analysis
(n = 16)
Older people with cognitive impairment living in the community
Low Mean difference in meta-analysis fallers vs non fallers
TUG 2.20 (−1.42, 5.82), p = 0.23 (n = 4)
Not favourable
Eagles [27] Systematic review without meta-analysis
(n = 1)
Emergency department
Low One study was reported as assessing TUG and falls but no results for falls prediction given. 38% of participants unable to complete TUG. Unclear
Muir [42] Meta-analysis
(n = 1*)
Community-dwelling
Low No data to extract but indicates non-significant findings for falls risk Not favourable
  1. Abbreviations: AUC Area under the curve, CI Confidence interval, df degrees of freedom, IRR Incidence rate ratio, n number of included studies, OR Odds ratio, SROC summary receiver operating characteristic, TUG Timed Up and Go. *This study did meta-analyses, but not on TUG, which was only reported in one paper