Skip to main content

Table 7 Summary table of the Single Leg Stance 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
Chen-Ju Fu [39] Meta-analysis
(n = 15)
Elderly aged over 65 years who can walk without assistance
High Maximal standing time identified with high heterogeneity (I2 = 80%) and significant group difference (−6.21 seconds [−10.60–-1.82], p = 0.006,)
(n = 3)
Lusardi [9] Meta-analysis
(n = 5)
Unclear Posttest probability of falling based on SLS time < 6.5
Positive likelihood ratio1.9, negative likelihood ratio 0.9. Posttest probability in positive test 45%, posttest probability if negative test 28%. Sensitivity 19%, specificity 90%
Posttest probability of falling based on SLS time < 12.7. Sensitivity 63%, specificity 49%
Kozinc [40] Meta-analysis
(n = 18)
Mixed settings
Unclear Sensitivity moderate to high for single-leg Center of Pressure velocity measures (70–78%), and moderate for single-leg stance time (51–67%). Specificity high only for single-leg stance time in one study (89%) and low to moderate in other studies (43–67%). Inconsistent
Omana [31] Meta-analysis
(n = 21)
Unclear The ranges of sensitivity and specificity were 0.51 and 0.61
Sensitivity and specificity for recurrent falls were 0.33 and 0.712, respectively
(n = 6)
Not favorable
Muir [42] Meta-analysis
(n = 5)
Low Significant association for increased falls risk found in 1 study, no specific data to extract. No other results for remaining studies reported. Inconsistent
  1. Abbreviations: n number of included studies, SLS Single Leg Stance, SLST single-leg stance test