Literature DB >> 12720619

Identifying a cut-off point for normal mobility: a comparison of the timed 'up and go' test in community-dwelling and institutionalised elderly women.

Heike A Bischoff1, Hannes B Stähelin, Andreas U Monsch, Maura D Iversen, Antje Weyh, Margot von Dechend, Regula Akos, Martin Conzelmann, Walter Dick, Robert Theiler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: physical mobility testing is an essential component of the geriatric assessment. The timed up and go test measures basic mobility skills including a sequence of functional manoeuvres used in everyday life.
OBJECTIVES: to create a practical cut-off value to indicate normal versus below normal timed up and go test performance by comparing test performance of community-dwelling and institutionalised elderly women. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 413 community-dwelling and 78 institutionalised mobile elderly women (age range 65-85 years) were enrolled in a cross-sectional study. MEASUREMENTS: timed up and go test duration, residential and mobility status, age, height, weight and body mass index were documented.
RESULTS: 92% of community-dwelling elderly women performed the timed up and go test in less than 12 seconds and all community-dwelling women had times below 20 seconds. In contrast only 9% of institutionalised elderly women performed the timed up and go test in less than 12 seconds, 42% were below 20 seconds, 32% had results between 20 and 30 seconds and 26% were above 30 seconds. The 10(th)-90(th) percentiles for timed up and go test performance were 6.0-11.2 seconds for community-dwelling and 12.7-50.1 seconds for institutionalised elderly women. When stratifying participants according to mobility status, the timed up and go test duration increased significantly with decreasing mobility (Kruskall-Wallis-test: p<0.0001). Linear regression modelling identified residential status (p<0.0001) and physical mobility status (p<0.0001) as significant predictors of timed up and go performance. This model predicted 54% of total variation of timed up and go test performance.
CONCLUSION: residential and mobility status were identified as the strongest predictors of timed up and go test performance. We recommend the timed up and go test as a screening tool to determine whether an in-depth mobility assessment and early intervention, such as prescription of a walking aid, home visit or physiotherapy, is necessary. Community-dwelling elderly women between 65 and 85 years of age should be able to perform the timed up and go test in 12 seconds or less.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12720619     DOI: 10.1093/ageing/32.3.315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Age Ageing        ISSN: 0002-0729            Impact factor:   10.668


  150 in total

Review 1.  Timed Up and Go test and risk of falls in older adults: a systematic review.

Authors:  O Beauchet; B Fantino; G Allali; S W Muir; M Montero-Odasso; C Annweiler
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.075

2.  Measures of chronic conditions and diseases associated with aging in the national social life, health, and aging project.

Authors:  Sharon R Williams; Genevieve Pham-Kanter; Sara A Leitsch
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2009-02-09       Impact factor: 4.077

3.  Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathy exhibit impairments in multitasking and other executive functions.

Authors:  Jason L Rucker; Stephen D Jernigan; Joan M McDowd; Patricia M Kluding
Journal:  J Neurol Phys Ther       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.649

Review 4.  [Assessment and training of strength and balance for fall prevention in the elderly: recommendations of an interdisciplinary expert panel].

Authors:  U Granacher; T Muehlbauer; Y J Gschwind; B Pfenninger; R W Kressig
Journal:  Z Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.281

5.  Interpreting the need for initial support to perform tandem stance tests of balance.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Hile; Jennifer S Brach; Subashan Perera; David M Wert; Jessie M VanSwearingen; Stephanie A Studenski
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2012-06-28

6.  Baseline characteristics of participants in the VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL): Effects on Bone Structure and Architecture.

Authors:  Catherine M Donlon; Meryl S LeBoff; Sharon H Chou; Nancy R Cook; Trisha Copeland; Julie E Buring; Vadim Bubes; Gregory Kotler; JoAnn E Manson
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 7.  Comparative Approaches to Understanding the Relation Between Aging and Physical Function.

Authors:  Jamie N Justice; Matteo Cesari; Douglas R Seals; Carol A Shively; Christy S Carter
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 6.053

8.  The diagnostic value of phase angle, an integrative bioelectrical marker, for identifying individuals with dysmobility syndrome: the Korean Urban-Rural Elderly study.

Authors:  Y W Jung; N Hong; C O Kim; H C Kim; Y Youm; J -Y Choi; Y Rhee
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Relationship between self-reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population.

Authors:  Rajiv Gandhi; Dmitry Tsvetkov; J Roderick Davey; Khalid A Syed; Nizar N Mahomed
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 2.980

10.  Secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures--an "OPTIMAL" model of care from Singapore.

Authors:  M Chandran; M Z W Tan; M Cheen; S B Tan; M Leong; T C Lau
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.