This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

37/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Fourteen studies were included in the scoping review from 11,492 citations. Cross-sectional study designs were used in thirteen studies. Four articles recruited participants of all ages, the remaining ten studies recruited participants ≥60 years. Seven studies examined people with particular medical conditions, namely Parkinson's disease, stroke, dementia, mobility impairment and Guillain-Barré syndrome, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, polyneuropathy and spinal cord injury. In eight studies, the objective assessments were tested against professional walking aid prescription. Thirteen objective assessments reported the ability to distinguish the need for walking aid use. This scoping review identified limited evidence on objective assessments used for prescribing walking aids for people with balance impairment and/or falls risk. The findings provide guidance for future research, specifically aiming to discern people needing different walking aids. Research designs that use longer time frames, include methods and outcome measures where patients' perspective can be evaluated and utilise professional prescription rather than usual aids would strengthen future investigations.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Joo, B., Marquez, J. L., & Osmotherly, P. G. (2025). Objective assessments for walking aid prescription in balance impairment and falls risk: a scoping review of current evidence. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2025.2508936

Vancouver

Joo B, Marquez JL, Osmotherly PG. Objective assessments for walking aid prescription in balance impairment and falls risk: a scoping review of current evidence. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology. 2025. doi:10.1080/17483107.2025.2508936. PMID: 40438968.

BibTeX

@article{joo2025-40438968,
  author  = {Joo, Baeho and Marquez, Jodie L. and Osmotherly, Peter G.},
  title   = {{Objective assessments for walking aid prescription in balance impairment and falls risk: a scoping review of current evidence}},
  journal = {Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1080/17483107.2025.2508936},
  pmid    = {40438968},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2025.2508936}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Fourteen studies were included in the scoping review from 11,492 citations.
Cross-sectional study designs were used in thirteen studies.
Four articles recruited participants of all ages, the remaining ten studies recruited participants ≥60 years.
Seven studies examined people with particular medical conditions, namely Parkinson's disease, stroke, dementia, mobility impairment and Guillain-Barré syndrome, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, polyneuropathy and spinal cord injury.
In eight studies, the objective assessments were tested against professional walking aid prescription.

Why it matters

This scoping review found only limited evidence on objective assessments for prescribing walking aids to people with balance impairment or falls risk, including some studies of people with dementia. It identifies a gap in research rather than offering a treatment or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 37/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology: journal h-index 80 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 2 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 4.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 2 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Peter G. Osmotherly: h-index 27 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	0 / 3	University of Newcastle Australia: institution h-index 673 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40438968)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	37 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Related studies in Clinical safety

Also in Clinical safety

96 studies in the library are filed under Clinical safety with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical safety hub.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →