• Richard B Chow, Andre Lee, Bryan G Kane, Jeanne L Jacoby, Robert D Barraco, Stephen W Dusza, Matthew C Meyers, and Marna Rayl Greenberg.
• Department of Emergency and Hospital Medicine, Lehigh Valley Hospital and Health Network/USF MCOM, Allentown, PA, United States.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Mar 1; 37 (3): 457-460.

ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the "Timed Up and Go" (TUG) and the Chair test as screening tools in the Emergency Department (ED), stratified by sex.MethodsThis prospective cohort study was conducted at a Level 1 Trauma center. After consent, subjects performed the TUG and the Chair test. Subjects were contacted for phone follow-up and asked to self-report interim falling.ResultsData from 192 subjects were analyzed. At baseline, 71.4% (n = 137) screened positive for increased falls risk based on the TUG evaluation, and 77.1% (n = 148) scored below average on the Chair test. There were no differences by patient sex. By the six-month evaluation 51 (26.6%) study participants reported at least one fall. Females reported a non-significant higher prevalence of falls compared to males (29.7% versus 22.2%, p = 0.24). TUG test had a sensitivity of 70.6% (95% CI: 56.2%-82.5%), a specificity of 28.4% (95% CI: 21.1%-36.6%), a positive predictive (PP) value 26.3% (95% CI: 19.1%-34.5%) and a negative predictive (NP) value of 72.7% (95% CI: 59.0%-83.9%). Similar results were observed with the Chair test. It had a sensitivity of 78.4% (95% CI: 64.7%-88.7%), a specificity of 23.4% (95% CI: 16.7%-31.3%), a PP value 27.0% (95% CI: 20.1%-34.9%) and a NP value of 75.0% (95% CI: 59.7%-86.8%). No significant differences were observed between sexes.ConclusionsThere were no sex specific significant differences in TUG or Chair test screening performance. Neither test performed well as a screening tool for future falls in the elderly in the ED setting.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

28 keywords...

hide…