Observational study validates an instrumental device for assessing fall risk and frailty in older people, suggesting efficacy for future use.
Objective: To validate the Oldfry instrumental device for efficiently detecting the risk of falls and frailty in older adults. Design and Methods: An observational, analytical, cross-sectional, multicenter, non-randomized study to validate an instrumental device. It was conducted in several nursing homes for the elderly in the province of Castellón, Comunidad Valenciana, Spain, from February to April 2024. The estimated necessary sample size was 149 people. Specific selection criteria and voluntary acceptance to participate in the study were established. Sociodemographic, anthropometric, and other variables such as fall history in the past year were collected. A descriptive and comparative analysis of the variables was performed. The validity and reliability of the device in its measurements were determined to compare the results of the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and the Short Physical Performance Battery test (SPPB), with respect to the Oldfry instrumental device. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University Jaume I. Results: The sample consisted of 151 participants with a median age of 84 years (IQR [78.0–91.0]), comprising 39.10% men and 60.90% women, 65 years of age or older. Oldfry presents a sensitivity of 45.90% and a specificity of 72.7% for the risk of falls with a correlation R: 0.773 and an ICC concordance: 0.821. For frailty assessment, it shows a sensitivity of 91.90% and a specificity of 9.10% with an R: 0.854 and ICC: 0.805. Conclusions: This device has proven to be an effective tool for detecting both the risk of falls and frailty in older adults residing in institutions, showing high levels of reliability, sensitivity, and high concordance and correlation in both measurements. Future studies are anticipated to evaluate the benefits of this application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martí-Marco et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: