. 2020 Oct 7;9(10):1057–1064. doi: 10.1530/EC-20-0405
This work is licensed under a Table 2.
Results from univariate and multivariable models regarding relationship between frailty and risk of fall.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P-value | OR (95% CI) | P-value | OR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| Continuous | ||||||
| Per-0.01 increase | 1.05 (1.04, 1.06) | <0.001 | 1.05 (1.04, 1.06) | <0.001 | 1.06 (1.04, 1.09) | <0.001 |
| Per-s.d. increase | 1.65 (1.48, 1.84) | <0.001 | 1.62 (1.45, 1.82) | <0.001 | 1.89 (1.50, 2.38) | <0.001 |
| Dichotomizeda | ||||||
| Frailtyb | 3.26 (2.61, 4.09) | <0.001 | 3.18 (2.53, 4.00) | <0.001 | 3.08 (2.18, 4.34) | <0.001 |
Model 1 (Basic model): Only frailty included in the model for analysis; Model 2 (age-adjusted model): Model 1 + age; Model 3 (Fully-adjusted model): Model 2 + gender, BMI, marital status, smoking status, drinking status, residence, education level, balance performance (semi-tandem stand and full-tandem stand), type of toilet, grip strength, eyesight, co-morbid condition, overnight hospitalization in last year.
aTaking robust as reference; bParticipants with FI scores higher than mean FI score of overall participants (0.24) were classified to frailty.
OR, odds ratio.