| Literature DB >> 24484283 |
Gláucia R Falsarella1, Ibsen B Coimbra, Caroline C Barcelos, Isabele Iartelli, Kedma T Montedori, Manuela N J Santos, Anita L Neri, Arlete M V Coimbra.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of muscle mass and bone mineral density on markers of mobility in dwelling elderly women.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24484283 PMCID: PMC3974150 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2318-14-13
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Characterization of the sample regarding age, schooling, weight, height, bmi, comorbidities, gait speed, TUG, sarcopenia and BMD in elderly women*
| 77.03 | 6.51 | 66.00 | 72.00 | 77.00 | 81.00 | 94.00 | |
| 3.86 | 3.57 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 15.00 | |
| 1.51 | 0.05 | 1.40 | 1.47 | 1.51 | 1.53 | 1.67 | |
| 66.19 | 16.78 | 37.00 | 53.10 | 64.50 | 75.50 | 132.00 | |
| 29.12 | 7.02 | 16.01 | 23.37 | 28.77 | 32.68 | 57.89 | |
| 3.66 | 1.67 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 8.00 | |
| 6.06 | 2.94 | 3.26 | 4.18 | 5.16 | 7.17 | 19.72 | |
| 13.89 | 5.58 | 6.87 | 9.98 | 12.43 | 16.16 | 36.04 | |
| 7.44 | 1.33 | 5.36 | 6.32 | 7.33 | 8.11 | 11.29 | |
| 1030 | 120.4 | 762.0 | 940.0 | 1037 | 1123 | 1283 |
*n = 99.
**sd = standard deviation, min = minimum, q1 = quartile 1, q3 = quartile 3, max = maximum.
Correlation between muscle mass and bone mass with gait speed and TUG
| r = 0.18281 | 0.06163 | 0.08019 | |
| n = 98 | P = 0.0716 | 0.5466 | 0.432 |
| 0.27749 | 0.15157 | 0.14129 | |
| n = 96 | 0.0062 | 0.1404 | 0.1697 |
*r = Spearman correlation coefficient; P = P value; n = number of subjects.
Analysis covariance between muscle mass and bone mass with gait speed and TUG
| Continuous variable | 0.0102 | Continuous variable | 0.0027 |
| Continuous variable | 0.2910 | Continuous variable | 0.0644 |
*Value-p refers to ANCOVA, adjusted for aged and comorbidity.
Analysis of covariance multiple for gait speed and TUG, controlling for age and comorbidities
| Continuous variable | 11.84 (3.68) | 0.0018 | 0.0636 |
| Continuous variable | 6.538 (2.121) | 0.0027 | 0.0898 |
*Value-p refers to ANCOVA, adjusted for aged and comorbidity.
Univariate logistic regression analysis for gait speed and TUG
| | | | | | | |
| Continuous variable | 1.081 | 1.006-1.161 | 0.034 | 1.052 | 0.988-1.120 | 0.113 |
| | | | | | | |
| No (ref.) | 1.00 | - | - | 1.00 | - | - |
| Yes | 0.61 | 0.22-1.71 | 0.345 | 0.31 | 0.13-0.75 | 0.010 |
| | | | | | | |
| Normal (ref.) | 1.00 | - | - | 1.00 | - | - |
| Osteopenia | 0.39 | 0.12-1.24 | 0.111 | 0.42 | 0.17-1.06 | 0.066 |
| Osteoporosis | 1.49 | 0.46-4.51 | 0.483 | 1.09 | 0.36-3.29 | 0.886 |
| | | | | | | |
| Normal (ref.) | 1.00 | - | - | 1.00 | - | - |
| Underweight | 1.24 | 0.27-5.68 | 0.786 | 0.55 | 0.17-1.76 | 0.310 |
| Overweight | 1.97 | 0.36-0.82 | 0.436 | 7.29 | 1.51-35.08 | 0.013 |
| Obese | 2.72 | 0.78-9.49 | 0.116 | 5.43 | 1.75-16.85 | 0.003 |
| | | | | | | |
| 0-4 diseases (ref.) | 1.00 | - | - | 1.00 | - | - |
| >4 diseases | 0.78 | 0.27-2.23 | 0.646 | 1.21 | 0.49-2.98 | 0.685 |
| | | | | | | |
| 0-4 (ref.) | 1.00 | - | - | 1.00 | - | - |
| >4 | 1.38 | 0.55-3.48 | 0.492 | 1.33 | 0.60-2.98 | 0.486 |
*OR (odds ratio) = ratio of risk for poor performance (n = 73 elderly women with good performance and n = 25 elderly women with worse performance); CI 95%, OR = 95% interval of confidence for the risk ratio; ref: reference level; n = 98.
**OR (odds ratio) = ratio of risk for poor performance (n = 24 elderly women with TUG 1 (≤10 s), n = 59 elderly women with TUG 2 (10.01 - 20 s) and n = 13 with TUG 3 (over 20.01 s)); CI 95% OR = 95% interval of confidence for the risk ratio; ref: reference level Proportional hazards model. n = 96.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis for gait speed and TUG
| | | | | | | |
| Continuous variable | 0.034 | 1.081 | 1.006-1.161 | 0.004 | 1.111 | 1.034 -1.194 |
| | | | | | | |
| Normal (ref.) | | | | - | 1.00 | - |
| Underweight | | | | 0.158 | 0.41 | 0.12-1.42 |
| Overweight | | | | 0.011 | 7.83 | 1.60-38.27 |
| Obese | <0.001 | 7.84 | 2.31-24.21 | |||
*OR (odds ratio) = ratio of risk for poor performance (n = 73 with good performance and n = 25 with worse performance); CI 95% OR = 95% interval of confidence for the risk ratio. Stepwise criterion for variable selection; n = 98.
**OR (odds ratio) = ratio of risk for poor performance (n = 24 with TUG 1 (≤10 s), n = 59 with TUG 2 (10.01 – 20 s) and n = 13 with TUG 3 (over 20.01 s)). Proportional hazards model. CI 95% OR = 95% interval of confidence for the risk ratio. Stepwise criterion for variable selection; n = 96.