Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 6;7(4):139. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering7040139

Table 3.

Summary of findings for fallers vs. non-fallers.

Population: Anyone Classified as A Faller
Settings: Clinical or Laboratory
Evaluation: Instrumented Sit-to-Stand Test
Comparison: Non-Fallers
Outcomes Illustrative Example Effect Size (95% CI) Number of Participants (Studies) Evidence Quality (GRADE)
Fallers Non-Fallers
iSTS total time 16.8 s 14.3 s [37] 0.42 1 (0.10, 0.74) 172 (3 studies) Low
iSTS stand-to-sit time 0.45 s 0.45 s [32] 0.03 1 (−0.33, 0.39) 172 (3 studies) Low
iSTS sit-to-stand time 0.49 s 0.41 s [32] 0.38 1 (0.10, 0.66) 172 (3 studies) Low
iSTS force/power 6.2 W/Kg 7.3 W/kg [36] 0.56 1 (0.36, 0.76) 126 (2 studies) Low
iSTS frequency 13.1 Hz 11.3 Hz [32] 0.45 1 (0.16, 0.73) 39 (1 study) Low
iSTS velocity 0.41 m/s 0.50 m/s [36] 0.56 1 (0.35, 0.77) 192 (2 studies) Low
Physical function vs. iSTS force/power r = 0.499 [38]
peak GRF 3 vs. gait speed
0.46 2 (0.35, 0.51) 27 (1 study) Low
Physical function vs. iSTS velocity r = 0.533 [37]
STS velocity vs. knee extension
0.43 2 (0.33, 0.53) 94 (1 study) Low
Physical function vs. iSTS time r = 0.316 [37]
STS time vs. knee extension
0.31 2 (0.21, 0.42) 94 (1 study) Low
Classification using iSTS parameters 72.6% accuracy in classifying fallers [31] Not estimable 261 (3 studies) Low

1 Pooled estimate using Cohen’s d; 2 Pooled estimate using Fisher’s Z-transformed correlation coefficients; 3 Ground Reaction Force.