Table 8 Summary table of the Functional Reach 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 | low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) and significant group difference (−3.44 cm [−4.60–-2.28], p < 0.001, between the two studies. | Favorable |
Nakamura [20] | Narrative No study number or characteristics to extract | High | Reported as one of the most common tests and reported as having predictive ability but no results given. | Unclear |
Scott [35] | Systematic review without meta-analysis (n = 7) Mixed settings | High | Community (n = 4): - reported in 1 study as 73% sensitivity and 88% specificity. Long term care (n = 2): - no data to extract Acute (n = 1): - reported in 1 study as 76% sensitivity and 34% specificity. | Favourable |
Dolatabadi [26] | Systematic review without meta-analysis (n = 1) Older adults with diagnosis of dementia | Unclear | Significant findings reported in a dementia population (p = 0.02) | Favourable |
Kozinc [40] | Meta-analysis (n = 17) No details of characteristics | Unclear | SMD (95%CI) -0.33 (−0.62, −0.04), p = 0.03, positive values indicate a higher value in fallers | Not favourable |
Lusardi [9] | Meta-analysis (n = 2) Community-dwelling | Unclear | Functional reach distance < 22 cm points, positive likelihood ratio 7.9, negative likelihood ratio 0.5, posttest probability with a positive test 77%, posttest probability with a negative test 17%. Sensitivity 55%, specificity 93%. | Favourable |
Omana [31] | Meta-analysis (n = 21) Community-dwelling | Unclear | For the outcome of any fall, the respective ranges of sensitivity and specificity were 0.73 and 0.88 for the FRT, 0.47 to 0.682 and 0.59 to 0.788 for the modified FRT, (n = 8) | Unclear |
Rosa [43] | Meta-analysis (n = 5) Mixed settings | Unclear | FRT was not capable of predicting falls (p = 0.098). The group of older adults who had not fallen presented values 2.30 cm greater (95% CI −0.43-5.04) than those who had fallen in the follow-up period. There is evidence to support the use of the FRT to assess dynamic balance but not to support its use to predict falls. | Not favourable |
Muir [42] | Meta-analysis (n = 3) Mixed settings | Unclear | No data to extract but indicates non-significant findings. | Not favourable |