↓ Skip to main content

Low FAB score as a predictor of future falling in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a 2.5-year prospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Low FAB score as a predictor of future falling in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a 2.5-year prospective study
Published in
Journal of Neurology, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00415-015-7814-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroshi Kataoka, Satoshi Ueno

Abstract

Falling is one of the most disabling features of Parkinson's disease (PD). Many cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and prospective studies have attempted to identify risk factors or predictors of falls, but consistent results are yet to be obtained because of the various factors involved. We prospectively studied patients with various severities of PD to identify risk factors for future falls during 2.5 years of follow-up. We registered 95 patients with PD, and 83 patients were included in data analysis. A total of 23 variables were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Thirty-one patients (37 %) had a previous history of falling, and 26 patients (30 %) experienced their first fall. The prevalence of falls at 2.5 years was 62 % (52 of 83 patients). Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) score (OR 1.393, p = 0.005, 95 % CI 1.104-1.759) and history of fall present (OR 0.142, p = 0.002, 95 % CI 0.042-0.48) were related to falling on multiple logistic regression analysis. The following variables differed significantly between patients with first falls and those without falling: levodopa equivalent dose (p = 0.023), UPDRS part I (p = 0.006), SF-8 (p = 0.017), and FAB (p = 0.026). Calculation of the FAB score may be useful for predicting the risk of future falls in patients with various severities of PD. Our results suggest that a low FAB score combined with a history of falling within the past 6 months carries an increased risk of future falls.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 8%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 25%
Unspecified 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Professor 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 46%
Unspecified 4 17%
Neuroscience 3 13%
Computer Science 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Other 2 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2015.
All research outputs
#9,766,178
of 12,220,568 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#1,801
of 2,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,287
of 246,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#43
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,220,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,306 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.