Alyssa D Stookey1, Leslie I Katzel2, Gregory Steinbrenner2, Marianne Shaughnessy2, Frederick M Ivey3. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: alyssa.stookey@va.gov. 2. Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Neurology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The short physical performance battery is a widely used instrument for quantifying lower extremity function in older adults. However, its utility for predicting endurance-based measures of functional performance that are more difficult to conduct in clinical settings is unknown. An understanding of this could be particularly relevant in mobility impaired stroke survivors, for whom establishing the predictive strength of simpler to perform measures would aid in tracking broader categories of functional disability. This cross-sectional study was conducted to determine whether the short physical performance battery is related to functional measures with a strong endurance component. METHODS: Functional measures (short physical performance battery, peak aerobic capacity, and 6-minute walk) were obtained and compared for the first time in stroke survivors with hemiparetic gait. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess strength of the relationships (α P < .05). RESULTS: Forty-three stroke participants performed a standardized short physical performance battery. Forty-one of the subjects completed a 6-minute walk, and 40 completed a peak treadmill test. Mean short physical performance battery (6.3 ± 2.5 [mean ± SD]), 6-minute walk (242 ± 115 meters), and peak aerobic capacity (17.4 ± 5.4 mL/kg/min) indicated subjects had moderate to severely impaired lower extremity functional performance. The short physical performance battery was related to both 6-minute walk (r = 0.76; P < .0001) and peak fitness (r = 0.52; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the short physical performance battery may be reflective of endurance-based, longer-distance performance measures that would be difficult to perform in standard clinical stroke settings. Additional studies are needed to explore the value of using the short physical performance battery to assess rehabilitation-related functional progression after stroke. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The short physical performance battery is a widely used instrument for quantifying lower extremity function in older adults. However, its utility for predicting endurance-based measures of functional performance that are more difficult to conduct in clinical settings is unknown. An understanding of this could be particularly relevant in mobility impaired stroke survivors, for whom establishing the predictive strength of simpler to perform measures would aid in tracking broader categories of functional disability. This cross-sectional study was conducted to determine whether the short physical performance battery is related to functional measures with a strong endurance component. METHODS: Functional measures (short physical performance battery, peak aerobic capacity, and 6-minute walk) were obtained and compared for the first time in stroke survivors with hemiparetic gait. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess strength of the relationships (α P < .05). RESULTS: Forty-three strokeparticipants performed a standardized short physical performance battery. Forty-one of the subjects completed a 6-minute walk, and 40 completed a peak treadmill test. Mean short physical performance battery (6.3 ± 2.5 [mean ± SD]), 6-minute walk (242 ± 115 meters), and peak aerobic capacity (17.4 ± 5.4 mL/kg/min) indicated subjects had moderate to severely impaired lower extremity functional performance. The short physical performance battery was related to both 6-minute walk (r = 0.76; P < .0001) and peak fitness (r = 0.52; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the short physical performance battery may be reflective of endurance-based, longer-distance performance measures that would be difficult to perform in standard clinical stroke settings. Additional studies are needed to explore the value of using the short physical performance battery to assess rehabilitation-related functional progression after stroke. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: R F Macko; L I Katzel; A Yataco; L D Tretter; C A DeSouza; D R Dengel; G V Smith; K H Silver Journal: Stroke Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert Adams; Mercedes Carnethon; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Katherine Flegal; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Graham Nichol; Christopher O'Donnell; Veronique Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Julia Steinberger; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Yuling Hong Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Milan Chang; Jiska Cohen-Mansfield; Luigi Ferrucci; Suzanne Leveille; Stefano Volpato; Nathalie de Rekeneire; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: G H Guyatt; M J Sullivan; P J Thompson; E L Fallen; S O Pugsley; D W Taylor; L B Berman Journal: Can Med Assoc J Date: 1985-04-15 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Paul L Enright; Mary Ann McBurnie; Vera Bittner; Russell P Tracy; Robert McNamara; Alice Arnold; Anne B Newman Journal: Chest Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: C Lynne Dobrovolny; Frederick M Ivey; Marc A Rogers; John D Sorkin; Richard F Macko Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Kathleen Michael; Andrew P Goldberg; Margarita S Treuth; Jeffrey Beans; Peter Normandt; Richard F Macko Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.119
Authors: Stephen B Kritchevsky; Daniel E Forman; Kathryn E Callahan; E Wesley Ely; Kevin P High; Frances McFarland; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Kenneth E Schmader; Stephanie A Studenski; John Williams; Susan Zieman; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Julia E Inglis; Isabel D Fernandez; Edwin van Wijngaarden; Eva Culakova; Jennifer E Reschke; Amber S Kleckner; Po-Ju Lin; Karen M Mustian; Luke J Peppone Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: Melanie Thalmann; Lisa Ringli; Manuela Adcock; Nathalie Swinnen; Jacqueline de Jong; Chantal Dumoulin; Vânia Guimarães; Eling D de Bruin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 3.390