↓ Skip to main content

The Aachen Mobility and Balance Index to measure physiological falls risk: a comparison with the Tinetti POMA Scale

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
Title
The Aachen Mobility and Balance Index to measure physiological falls risk: a comparison with the Tinetti POMA Scale
Published in
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00068-016-0693-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Knobe, M. Giesen, S. Plate, G. Gradl-Dietsch, B. Buecking, D. Eschbach, W. van Laack, H.-C. Pape

Abstract

The most commonly used mobility assessments for screening risk of falls among older adults are rating scales such as the Tinetti performance oriented mobility assessment (POMA). However, its correlation with falls is not always predictable and disadvantages of the scale include difficulty to assess many of the items on a 3-point scale and poor specificity. The purpose of this study was to describe the ability of the new Aachen Mobility and Balance Index (AMBI) to discriminate between subjects with a fall history and subjects without such events in comparison to the Tinetti POMA Scale. For this prospective cohort study, 24 participants in the study group and 10 in the control group were selected from a population of patients in our hospital who had met the stringent inclusion criteria. Both groups completed the Tinetti POMA Scale (gait and balance component) and the AMBI (tandem stance, tandem walk, ten-meter-walk-test, sit-to-stand with five repetitions, 360° turns, timed-up-and-go-test and measurement of the dominant hand grip strength). A history of falls and hospitalization in the past year were evaluated retrospectively. The relationships among the mobility tests were examined with Bland-Altmananalysis. Receiver-operated characteristics curves, sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The study showed a strong negative correlation between the AMBI (17 points max., highest fall risk) and Tinetti POMA Scale (28 points max., lowest fall risk; r = -0.78, p < 0.001) with an excellent discrimination between community-dwelling older people and a younger control group. However, there were no differences in any of the mobility and balance measurements between participants with and without a fall history with equal characteristics in test comparison (AMBI vs. Tinetti POMA Scale: AUC 0.570 vs. 0.598; p = 0.762). The Tinetti POMA Scale (cut-off <20 points) showed a sensitivity of 0.45 and a specificity of 0.69, the AMBI a sensitivity of 0.64 and a specificity of 0.46 (cut-off >5 points). The AMBI comprises mobility and balance tasks with increasing difficulty as well as a measurement of the dominant hand-grip strength. Its ability to identify fallers was comparable to the Tinetti POMA Scale. However, both measurement sets showed shortcomings in discrimination between fallers and non-fallers based on a self-reported retrospective falls-status.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 16%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 6 5%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 45 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 15%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 52 42%