Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moore L, Turgeon AF, Sirois MJ, Lavoie A. Trauma centre outcome performance: a comparison of young adults and geriatric patients in an inclusive trauma system. Injury. 2012;43(9):1580–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vlaeyen E, Deschodt M, Debard G, Dejaeger E, Boonen S, Goedemé T, Vanrumste B, Milisen K. Fall incidents unraveled: a series of 26 video-based real-life fall events in three frail older persons. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:103.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Liem IS, Kammerlander C, Suhm N, Blauth M, Roth T, Gosch M, Hoang-Kim A, Mendelson D, Zuckerman J, Leung F, Burton J, Moran C, Parker M, Giusti A, Pioli G, Goldhahn J, Kates SL. Investigation performed with the assistance of the AOTrauma network: identifying a standard set of outcome parameters for the evaluation of orthogeriatric co-management for hip fractures. Injury. 2013;44(11):1403–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kammerlander C, Gosch M, Blauth M, Lechleitner M, Luger TJ, Roth T. The tyrolean geriatric fracture center: an orthogeriatric co-management model. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2011;44(6):363–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bielza Galindo R, Ortiz Espada A, Arias Muñana E, Velasco Guzmán de Lázaro R, Mora Casado A, Moreno Martín R, Tapia Salinas B, Escalera Alonso J, Gómez Cerezo J. Opening of an acute orthogeriatric unit in a general hospital. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 2013;48(1):26–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Patel NK, Sarraf KM, Joseph S, Lee C, Middleton FR. Implementing the national hip fracture database: an audit of care. Injury. 2013;44(12):1934–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ungar A, Rafanelli M, Iacomelli I, Brunetti MA, Ceccofiglio A, Tesi F, Marchionni N. Fall prevention in the elderly. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2013;10(2):91–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Tinetti ME, Kumar C. The patient who falls: it’s always a trade-off. JAMA. 2010;303(3):258–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Gates S, Smith LA, Fisher JD, Lamb SE. Systematic review of accuracy of screening instruments for predicting fall risk among independently living older adults. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(8):1105–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. American Geriatrics Society. British geriatrics society, American cademy of orthopaedic surgeons panel on falls prevention. Guideline for the prevention of falls in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(5):664–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nevitt M, Cummings S, Kidd S, Black D. Risk factors for recurrent non-syncopal falls. JAMA. 1989;261:2663–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Berg KO, Maki BE, Williams JI, Holliday PJ, Wood-Dauphinee SL. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73:1073–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986;34:119–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chiu AY, Au-Yeung SS, Lo SK. A comparison of four functional tests in discriminating fallers from non-fallers in older people. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:45–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tiedemann A, Shimada H, Sherrington C, Murray S, Lord S. The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people. Age Ageing. 2008;37(4):430–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kopke S, Meyer G. The Tinetti test: babylon in geriatric assessment. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2006;39(4):288–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Singh DK, Pillai SG, Tan ST, Tai CC, Shahar S. Association between physiological falls risk and physical performance tests among community-dwelling older adults. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;13(10):1319–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yelnik A, Bonan I. Clinical tools for assessing balance disorders. Neurophysiol Clin. 2008;38:439–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Alexandre TS, Meira DM, Rico NC, Mizuta SK. Accuracy of timed up and go test for screening risk of falls among community-dwelling elderly. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2012;16(5):381–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Panzer VP, Wakefield DB, Hall CB, Wolfson LI. Mobility assessment: sensitivity and specificity of measurement sets in older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(6):905–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. American Geriatrics Society. Guidelines for the prevention of falls in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(5):664–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Studenski S, Fried LP, Cutler GB Jr. Interventions on frailty working group. designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail, older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:625–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stel VS, Pluijm SM, Deeg DJ, Smit JH, Bouter M, Lips P. A classification tree for predicting recurrent falling in community-dwelling older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(10):1356–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy MA, Olson SL, Protas EJ, Overby AR. Screening for falls in community-dwelling elderly. J Aging Phys Act. 2003;11:66–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gardner MM, Buchner DM, Robertson MC, Campbell AJ. Practical implementation of an exercise-based falls prevention programme. Age Ageing. 2001;30(1):77–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chu LW, Pei CK, Chiu A, Liu K, Chu MM, Wong S, Wong A. Risk factors for falls in hospitalized older medical patients. J Gerontol Biol Sci. 1999;54:M38–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Dargent-Molina P, Favier F, Grandjean H, Baudoin C, Schott AM, Hausherr E, Meunier PJ, Bréart G. Fall-related factors and risk of hip fracture: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet. 1996;348:145–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Imms FJ, Edholm OG. Studies of gait and mobility in the elderly. Age Ageing. 1981;10:147–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. der Weil Bootsma-van. A, Gussekloo J, de Craen AJM, Van Exel E, Bloem BR, Westendorp RG. Common chronic diseases and general impairments as determinants of walking disability in the oldest-old population. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:1405–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Podsialdo D, Richardson S. The timed up and go: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Piotrowski A, Cole J. Clinical measures of balance and functional assessment in elderly persons. Aust J Physiother. 1994;40:183–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Csuka M, McCarty DJ. Simple method for measurement of lower extremity muscle strength. Am J Med. 1985;78:77–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Campbell AJ, Borrie MJ, Spears GF. Risk factors for falls in a community-based prospective study of people 70 years and older. J Gerontol. 1989;44:M112–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Whitney SL, Wrisley DM, Marchetti GF, Gee MA, Redfern MS, Furman JM. Clinical measurement of sit-to-stand performance in people with balance disorders: validity of data for the five-times-sit-to-stand test. Phys Ther. 2005;85(10):1034–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can. 1989;41:304–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Viccaro LJ, Perera S, Studenski SA. Is timed up and go better than gait speed in predicting health, function, and falls in older adults? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:887–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Leong DP, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, Lopez-Jaramillo P, Avezum A Jr, Orlandini A, Seron P, Ahmed SH, Rosengren A, Kelishadi R, Rahman O, Swaminathan S, Iqbal R, Gupta R, Lear SA, Oguz A, Yusoff K, Zatonska K, Chifamba J, Igumbor E, Mohan V, Anjana RM, Gu H, Li W, Yusuf S. Prospective urban rural epidemiology (PURE) study investigators. Prognostic value of grip strength: findings from the prospective urban rural epidemiology (PURE) study. Lancet. 2015;386(9990):266–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mathiowetz V, Kashman N, Volland G, Weber K, Dowe M, Rogers S. Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985;66(2):69–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kegelmeyer DA, Kloos AD, Thomas KM, Kostyk SK. Reliability and validity of the Tinetti mobility test for individuals with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther. 2007;87(10):1369–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Baker DI, King MB, Fortinsky FH, Graff LG, Gottschalk M, Acampora D, Preston J, Brown CJ, Tineti ME. Dissemination of an evidence-based multi-component fall risk assessment and management strategy throughout a geographic area. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):675–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Raîche M, Hébert R, Prince F, Corriveau H. Screening older adults at risk of falling with the Tinetti balance scale. Lancet. 2000;356(9234):1001–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pape HC, Schemmann U, Foerster J, Knobe M. The aachen falls prevention scale-development of a tool for self-assessment of elderly patients at risk for ground level falls. Patient Saf Surg. 2015;14(9):7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, University of Aachen Medical Center, 30 Pauwels street, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    M. Knobe, M. Giesen, S. Plate, G. Gradl-Dietsch & H.-C. Pape

  2. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Gießen and Marburg GmbH, Campus Marburg, Baldinger street, 35033, Marburg, Germany

    B. Buecking & D. Eschbach

  3. Aachen University of Applied Sciences, 11 Bayernallee, 52066, Aachen, Germany

    W. van Laack

Authors
  1. M. Knobe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Giesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Plate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Gradl-Dietsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B. Buecking
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. Eschbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. W. van Laack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. H.-C. Pape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Knobe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Matthias Knobe, Meike Giesen, Sarah Plate, Gertraud Gradl-Dietsch, Benjamin Bücking, Daphne Eschbach, Walter van Laack, and Hans-Christoph Pape declare that they have no competing interests. No funds were received by any of the authors in support of this study.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the RWTH Aachen University (Ethical Approval EK 171/14).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from each participant and participation was voluntary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knobe, M., Giesen, M., Plate, S. et al. The Aachen Mobility and Balance Index to measure physiological falls risk: a comparison with the Tinetti POMA Scale. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 42, 537–545 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-016-0693-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-016-0693-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation