BackgroundThe Timed Up and Go test (TUG) is a commonly used screening tool to assist clinicians to identify patients at risk of falling. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the overall predictive value of the TUG in community-dwelling older adults.MethodsA literature search was performed to identify all studies that validated the TUG test. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, a validated tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. A TUG score of ≥13.5 seconds was used to identify individuals at higher risk of falling. All included studies were combined using a bivariate random effects model to generate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity at ≥13.5 seconds. Heterogeneity was assessed using the variance of logit transformed sensitivity and specificity.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included in the systematic review and 10 studies were included in meta-analysis. The TUG test was found to be more useful at ruling in rather than ruling out falls in individuals classified as high risk (>13.5 sec), with a higher pooled specificity (0.74, 95% CI 0.52-0.88) than sensitivity (0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.57). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the TUG score is not a significant predictor of falls (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p = 0.05).ConclusionThe Timed Up and Go test has limited ability to predict falls in community dwelling elderly and should not be used in isolation to identify individuals at high risk of falls in this setting.
The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise-from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists-has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to eff ect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care-its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families-are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.
• One third of the Irish population aged Ն70 years were prescribed at least one potentially inappropriate medication in 2007 based on European criteria.• There was a signficant association between polypharmacy and the risk of PIP. Polypharmacy was evaluated as the number of different repeat drug classes (Ն three prescription claims) per claimant.• The most prevalent PIP drugs were: proton pump inhibitors at maximum therapeutic dosage for >8 weeks (40 mg daily omeprazole, pantoprazole and esomeprazole, 30 mg daily lansoprazole and 20 mg daily rabeprazole); non-steroidal anti-inflammatories for >3 months; long-acting benzodiazepines for >1 month and drug duplication within the same therapeutic class.• The total expenditure on potentially inappropriate drugs was €45 631 319 in 2007 which is 9% of the overall expenditure on pharmaceuticals in those aged Ն70 years in Ireland. AIMSOptimization of drug prescribing in older populations is a priority due to the significant clinical and economic costs of drug-related illness. This study aimed to: (i) estimate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in a national Irish older population using European specific explicit prescribing criteria; (ii) investigate the association between PIP, number of drug classes, gender and age and; (iii) establish the total cost of PIP. METHODSThis was a retrospective national population study (n = 338 801) using the Health Service Executive Primary Care Reimbursement Service (HSE-PCRS) pharmacy claims database. The HSE-PCRS uses the WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system and details of every drug dispensed and claimants' demographic data are available. Thirty PIP indicators (STOPP) were applied to prescription claims for those Ն70 years in Ireland in 2007. STOPP is a physiological system based screening tool of older persons' potentially inappropriate prescriptions assessing drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, dose and duration. RESULTSIn our study population PIP prevalence was 36% (121 454 claimants).The main contributors to this were: 56 560 (17%) prescribed proton pump inhibitors at maximum therapeutic dose for >8 weeks, 29 691 (9%) prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatories for >3 months, 17 676 (5%) prescribed long-acting benzodiazepines for >1 month and 16 201 (5%) prescribed duplicate drugs. The main determinant of PIP was polypharmacy. The likelihood of PIP increased with a significant linear and quadratic trend (P < 0.0001) with the number of drug classes.The maximum net ingredient cost of PIP was estimated to be €38 664 640. Total PIP expenditure was estimated to be €45 631 319, 9% of the overall expenditure on pharmaceuticals in those Ն70 years in 2007.
Analysis 01.01. Comparison 01 Active intervention versus control, Outcome 01 Self monitoring (systolic blood pressure) Analysis 01.02. Comparison 01 Active intervention versus control, Outcome 02 Self monitoring (diastolic blood pressure
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.