Review | Review characteristics | Risk of bias assessment | Summary of key findings | Interpretation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ambrose [19] | Narrative No study number or characteristics to extract | High | No extracted data just described with 2 references: “A reliable and valid clinical test to assess static, dynamic, reactive and anticipatory balance, ambulation and transfers. It has been validated in community-dwelling older people”. | Unclear |
Nakamura [20] | Narrative No study number or characteristics to extract | High | Statement in review “The sensitivity of the POAB allows the practitioner to identify that there is a problem, but does not provide enough information on which to base a treatment” | Unclear |
Park [12] | Meta-analysis (n = 2, 284 participants) Mixed settings | High | The pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI 56–79%) and heterogeneity between the articles was 0.0% (χ2 = 0.32, P = .57); the pooled specificity was 56% (95% CI 49–62%) and heterogeneity between the articles was high, 79.2% (χ2 = 4.80, P = .03) | Inconsistent |
Dolatabadi [26] | Systematic review without meta-analysis (n = 1) Older adults with diagnosis of dementia | Unclear | POMA was used less frequently in studies with dementia than the instrumented gait, balance measures, and were not as successful in retrospective and prospective studies distinguishing fallers from non-fallers. | Inconsistent |
Lusardi [9] | Meta-analysis (n = 5) Community-dwelling | Unclear | Scoring less than 25 points (positive test) increased posttest probability to 42%. Scoring more than 25 points (negative test) decreased posttest probability to 23%. Sensitivity53%, specificity 69% | Not favourable |
Omana [31] | Meta-analysis (n = 21) Community-dwelling | Unclear | For the outcome of any fall, the respective ranges of sensitivity and specificity were 0.076 to 0.615 and 0.695 to 0.97 for the POMA, 0.27 to 0.70 and 0.52 to 0.83 for the modified POMA (n = 12) | Inconsistent |
Chantanachai [38] | Meta-analysis (n = 16) Older people with cognitive impairment living in the community | Low | Association between poor performance in POMA and falls (n = 1) | favourable |
Muir [42] | Meta-analysis (n = 3) Community-dwelling | Low | Significant associations for increased fall risk were found for POMA in 3 studies, data not reported. | Inconsistent |