Table 7 Summary table of the Single Leg Stance test as a falls assessment tool
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) | Favorable |
Lusardi [9] | Meta-analysis (n = 5) Community-dwelling | 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% | Inconsistent |
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) Community-dwelling | 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) Community-dwelling | Low | Significant association for increased falls risk found in 1 study, no specific data to extract. No other results for remaining studies reported. | Inconsistent |