BACKGROUND: Mobility often is tested under a low challenge condition (ie, over a straight, uncluttered path), which often fails to identify early mobility difficulty. Tests of walking during challenging conditions may uncover mobility difficulty that is not identified with usual gait testing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether gait during challenging conditions predicts decline in gait speed over 1 year in older people with apparently normal gait (ie, gait speed of ≥1.0 m/s). DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. METHODS: /b> Seventy-one older adults (mean age=75.9 years) with a usual gait speed of ≥1.0 m/s participated. Gait was tested at baseline under 4 challenging conditions: (1) narrow walk (15 cm wide), (2) stepping over obstacles (15.24 cm [6 in] and 30.48 cm [12 in]), (3) simple walking while talking (WWT), and (4) complex WWT. Usual gait speed was recorded over a 4-m course at baseline and 1 year later. A 1-year change in gait speed was calculated, and participants were classified as declined (decreased ≥0.10 m/s, n=18), stable (changed <0.10 m/s, n=43), or improved (increased ≥0.10 m/s, n=10). Analysis of variance was used to compare challenging condition cost (usual--challenging condition gait speed difference) among the 3 groups. RESULTS: Participants who declined in the ensuing year had a greater narrow walk and obstacle walk cost than those who were stable or who improved in gait speed (narrow walk cost=0.43 versus 0.33 versus 0.22 m/s and obstacle walk cost=0.35 versus 0.26 versus 0.13 m/s). Simple and complex WWT cost did not differ among the groups. LIMITATIONS: The participants who declined in gait speed over time walked the fastest, and those who improved walked the slowest at baseline; thus, the potential contribution of regression to the mean to the findings should not be overlooked. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with apparently normal gait, the assessment of gait during challenging conditions appears to uncover mobility difficulty that is not identified by usual gait testing.
BACKGROUND: Mobility often is tested under a low challenge condition (ie, over a straight, uncluttered path), which often fails to identify early mobility difficulty. Tests of walking during challenging conditions may uncover mobility difficulty that is not identified with usual gait testing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether gait during challenging conditions predicts decline in gait speed over 1 year in older people with apparently normal gait (ie, gait speed of ≥1.0 m/s). DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. METHODS: /b> Seventy-one older adults (mean age=75.9 years) with a usual gait speed of ≥1.0 m/s participated. Gait was tested at baseline under 4 challenging conditions: (1) narrow walk (15 cm wide), (2) stepping over obstacles (15.24 cm [6 in] and 30.48 cm [12 in]), (3) simple walking while talking (WWT), and (4) complex WWT. Usual gait speed was recorded over a 4-m course at baseline and 1 year later. A 1-year change in gait speed was calculated, and participants were classified as declined (decreased ≥0.10 m/s, n=18), stable (changed <0.10 m/s, n=43), or improved (increased ≥0.10 m/s, n=10). Analysis of variance was used to compare challenging condition cost (usual--challenging condition gait speed difference) among the 3 groups. RESULTS:Participants who declined in the ensuing year had a greater narrow walk and obstacle walk cost than those who were stable or who improved in gait speed (narrow walk cost=0.43 versus 0.33 versus 0.22 m/s and obstacle walk cost=0.35 versus 0.26 versus 0.13 m/s). Simple and complex WWT cost did not differ among the groups. LIMITATIONS: The participants who declined in gait speed over time walked the fastest, and those who improved walked the slowest at baseline; thus, the potential contribution of regression to the mean to the findings should not be overlooked. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with apparently normal gait, the assessment of gait during challenging conditions appears to uncover mobility difficulty that is not identified by usual gait testing.
Authors: Joe Verghese; Herman Buschke; Lisa Viola; Mindy Katz; Charles Hall; Gail Kuslansky; Richard Lipton Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Matteo Cesari; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Brenda W H J Penninx; Barbara J Nicklas; Eleanor M Simonsick; Anne B Newman; Frances A Tylavsky; Jennifer S Brach; Suzanne Satterfield; Douglas C Bauer; Marjolein Visser; Susan M Rubin; Tamara B Harris; Marco Pahor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Stefania Bandinelli; Martina Pozzi; Fulvio Lauretani; Caroline Phillips; Anne Shumway-Cook; Jack M Guralnik; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: L Ferrucci; S Bandinelli; E Benvenuti; A Di Iorio; C Macchi; T B Harris; J M Guralnik Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jennifer S Brach; Kristin Lowry; Subashan Perera; Victoria Hornyak; David Wert; Stephanie A Studenski; Jessie M VanSwearingen Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Alexander X Lo; John P Donnelly; Gerald McGwin; Vera Bittner; Ali Ahmed; Cynthia J Brown Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jennifer S Brach; Subashan Perera; Sandra Gilmore; Jessie M VanSwearingen; Deborah Brodine; David Wert; Neelesh K Nadkarni; Edmund Ricci Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Maha Almarwani; Subashan Perera; Jessie M VanSwearingen; Patrick J Sparto; Jennifer S Brach Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 2.840