Publication date: March–April 2019
Source: Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Volume 81
Author(s): Matheus Vieira Rosa, Monica Rodrigues Perracini, Natalia Aquaroni Ricci
Abstract
Objective
To identify the evidence about the usefulness of the Functional Reach Test to evaluate balance and falls risk; to verify the Functional Reach Test assessment method and other variables that could interfere in its results; and to establish normative data for older adults.
Data sources
Manual and electronic searches (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL, AgeLine and PsycINFO) were conducted with no language restrictions and published since 1990.
Study selection
Observational studies about the Functional Reach Test in older adults with no specific health condition were selected.
Data extraction
Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies and a third reviewer provided consensus. The studies methodological quality was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies were submitted to critical analysis and meta-analysis.
Results
40 studies were selected (8 prospective and 32 cross-sectional). 33 studies used the Functional Reach to assess balance and 21 studies the falls risk. The meta-analysis of Functional Reach normative data was 26.6 cm [95%CI: 25.14; 28.06] for community-dwelling older adults (n = 21 studies) and was 15.4 cm [95%CI: 13.47; 17.42] for non-community older adults (n = 5 studies), with statistics differences between settings. Functional Reach Test performance was found to decrease with age. Sex and prospective history of falls did not influence the test results. Methodological quality analysis determined high to low risk of bias of the studies.
Conclusion
This review revealed that the method of assessment and data of the Functional Reach Test varied greatly. Different values should be used for community- and non-community-dwelling older adults.
Graphical abstract