Prediction of Reduced Gait Speed Using 5-Time Sit-to-Stand Test in Healthy Older Adults
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, ISSN: 1525-8610, Vol: 23, Issue: 5, Page: 889-892
2022
- 5Citations
- 23Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes5
- CrossRef4
- Captures23
- Readers23
- 23
Article Description
To determine the accuracy of the 5-time stand-to-sit (5TSTS) test for the identification of older adults with reduced gait speed. Cross-sectional study. A total of 559 community-dwelling older adults were included in the study, divided into groups of women (n = 465) and men (n = 94). 5TSTS and gait speed were assessed. Multiple linear regression analysis with adjustment was performed in order to determine the association between 5TSTS and gait speed, followed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the identification of the usefulness of 5TSTS to discriminate older adults with reduced gait speed. Based on the ROC curve, we identified the area under the curve, the sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff points of the 5TSST. Statistical analyses were made using the SPSS software (version 25.0), and a significance level of 5% ( P ≤.05) was adopted. The 5TSTS showed correlation with gait speed. Additionally, 5TSTS was able to discriminate reduced gait speed with moderate accuracy ( P <.05; AUC between 0.7 and 0.8). For women, the cutoff scores for 5TSTS to identify gait speed <0.8 m/s was 14.15 seconds; for gait speed <1.0 m/s, it was 12.67 seconds. For men, the cutoff scores for 5TSTS to identify gait speed <0.8 m/s was 14.67 seconds, and for gait speed <1.0 m/s, it was 13.63 seconds. The 5TSTS is clinically useful and can be an alternative assessment for discriminating community-dwelling older adults with reduced gait speed, when the gait evaluation is not feasible. The study also suggests different cutoff values for 5TSTS considering the gait speeds <0.8 and <1.0 m/s for older women and men, respectively.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861021009440; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2021.11.002; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85120687232&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34848199; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1525861021009440; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2021.11.002
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know