The Aachen Falls Prevention Scale: Multi-Study Evaluation and Comparison

Peter Rasche; Verena Nitsch; Lars Rentemeister; Mark Coburn; Benjamin Buecking; Christopher Bliemel; Leo Cornelius Bollheimer; Hans-Christoph Pape; Matthias Knobe

doi:10.2196/12114

The Aachen Falls Prevention Scale: Multi-Study Evaluation and Comparison

JMIR Aging. 2019 May 16;2(1):e12114. doi: 10.2196/12114.

Authors

Peter Rasche¹, Verena Nitsch¹, Lars Rentemeister², Mark Coburn³, Benjamin Buecking⁴, Christopher Bliemel⁴, Leo Cornelius Bollheimer⁵, Hans-Christoph Pape⁶, Matthias Knobe²

Affiliations

¹ Institute of Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
² Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, University of Aachen Medical Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
³ Klinik für Anästhesiologie, University of Aachen Medical Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
⁴ Center for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
⁵ Department of Geriatrics, University of Aachen Medical Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
⁶ Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, University of Zurich Medical Center, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

PMID: 31518273
PMCID: PMC6715018
DOI: 10.2196/12114

Abstract

Background: Fall risk assessment is a time-consuming and resource-intensive activity. Patient-driven self-assessment as a preventive measure might be a solution to reduce the number of patients undergoing a full clinical fall risk assessment.

Objective: The aim of this study was (1) to analyze test accuracy of the Aachen Falls Prevention Scale (AFPS) and (2) to compare these results with established fall risk assessment measures identified by a review of systematic reviews.

Methods: Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating curves (ROC) of the AFPS were calculated based on data retrieved from 2 independent studies using the AFPS. Comparison with established fall risk assessment measures was made by conducting a review of systematic reviews and corresponding meta-analysis. Electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that reviewed fall risk assessment measures between the years 2000 and 2018. The review of systematic reviews was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. The Revised Assessment of Multiple SysTemAtic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) was used to assess the methodological quality of reviews. Sensitivity, specificity, and ROC were extracted from each review and compared with the calculated values of the AFPS.

Results: Sensitivity, specificity, and ROC of the AFPS were evaluated based on 2 studies including a total of 259 older adults. Regarding the primary outcome of the AFPS subjective risk of falling, pooled sensitivity is 57.0% (95% CI 0.467-0.669) and specificity is 76.7% (95% CI 0.694-0.831). If 1 out of the 3 subscales of the AFPS is used to predict a fall risk, pooled sensitivity could be increased up to 90.0% (95% CI 0.824-0.951), whereas mean specificity thereby decreases to 50.0% (95% CI 0.42-0.58). A systematic review for fall risk assessment measures produced 1478 articles during the study period, with 771 coming from PubMed, 530 from Web of Science, and 177 from EMBASE. After eliminating doublets and assessing full text, 8 reviews met the inclusion criteria. All were of sufficient methodological quality (R-AMSTAR score ≥22). A total number of 9 functional or multifactorial fall risk assessment measures were extracted from identified reviews, including Timed Up and Go test, Berg Balance Scale, Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment, St Thomas's Risk Assessment Tool in Falling Elderly, and Hendrich II Fall Risk Model. Comparison of these measures with pooled sensitivity and specificity of the AFPS revealed a sufficient quality of the AFPS in terms of a patient-driven self-assessment tool.

Conclusions: It could be shown that the AFPS reaches a test accuracy comparable with that of the established methods in this initial investigation. However, it offers the advantage that the users can perform the self-assessment independently at home without involving trained health care professionals.

Keywords: elderly; hip injuries; leg injuries; meta-analysis; self-assessment; sensitivity; specificity.

©Peter Rasche, Verena Nitsch, Lars Rentemeister, Mark Coburn, Benjamin Buecking, Christopher Bliemel, Leo Cornelius Bollheimer, Hans-Christoph Pape, Matthias Knobe. Originally published in JMIR Aging (http://aging.jmir.org), 16.05.2019.