Skip to main content

Table 9 Summary table of the Tinetti or Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment as falls assessment tools

From: Predicting falls in older adults: an umbrella review of instruments assessing gait, balance, and functional mobility

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
  1. Abbreviations: CI Confidence interval, n = number of included studies, POAB Performance-Oriented Assessment of Balance, POMA Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment, *This study did meta-analyses, but not on POMA, which was only reported in one paper