OBJECTIVE: To establish the cutoff time for the one-leg standing (OLS) test (with eyes open) to use when screening elderly people for locomotive syndrome. METHODS: Patients visiting orthopedic clinics and healthy volunteers, all ≥65 years old, were recruited. Participants were asked to complete the 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (GLFS-25) and then underwent the OLS test. Using the previously determined GLFS-25 cutoff value, participants were divided into two groups: the locomotive and the non-locomotive syndrome groups (GLFS-25 scores of ≥16 and <16, respectively). Conventional receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to calculate the optimal cutoff time for the OLS. RESULTS: Data from 880 individuals (261 men, 619 women; mean age (SD), 77 (6) years; range 65-96 years) were analyzed; 497 were in the locomotive syndrome group and 383 were in the non-locomotive syndrome group. A significant difference was seen between each group mean for individual average (IA) OLS times (IA-OLS: the average of the OLS times obtained for both legs of an individual). According to ROC analysis without age adjustment, when the IA-OLS time was ~9 s, the sum of the sensitivity and specificity of the test was highest. However, because of a statistically significant difference in IA-OLS time among the three age groups (aged ≤70, aged >70 and ≤75, and aged >75), we determined the optimal cutoff value for IA-OLS time for each of the three age groups using ROC analysis. According to additional ROC analysis, the optimal cutoff for IA-OLS time was 19 s for individuals aged ≤70, 10 s for individuals aged >70 and ≤75, and 6 s for individuals aged >75 when screening elderly persons for locomotive syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: We propose using a GLFS-25 score of 16 and/or a cutoff for the IA-OLS time of 19 s for individuals aged ≤70, 10 s for individuals aged >70 and ≤75, and 6 s for individuals aged >75 when screening elderly persons to determine who should receive medical intervention or undergoing training programs.
OBJECTIVE: To establish the cutoff time for the one-leg standing (OLS) test (with eyes open) to use when screening elderly people for locomotive syndrome. METHODS:Patients visiting orthopedic clinics and healthy volunteers, all ≥65 years old, were recruited. Participants were asked to complete the 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (GLFS-25) and then underwent the OLS test. Using the previously determined GLFS-25 cutoff value, participants were divided into two groups: the locomotive and the non-locomotive syndrome groups (GLFS-25 scores of ≥16 and <16, respectively). Conventional receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to calculate the optimal cutoff time for the OLS. RESULTS: Data from 880 individuals (261 men, 619 women; mean age (SD), 77 (6) years; range 65-96 years) were analyzed; 497 were in the locomotive syndrome group and 383 were in the non-locomotive syndrome group. A significant difference was seen between each group mean for individual average (IA) OLS times (IA-OLS: the average of the OLS times obtained for both legs of an individual). According to ROC analysis without age adjustment, when the IA-OLS time was ~9 s, the sum of the sensitivity and specificity of the test was highest. However, because of a statistically significant difference in IA-OLS time among the three age groups (aged ≤70, aged >70 and ≤75, and aged >75), we determined the optimal cutoff value for IA-OLS time for each of the three age groups using ROC analysis. According to additional ROC analysis, the optimal cutoff for IA-OLS time was 19 s for individuals aged ≤70, 10 s for individuals aged >70 and ≤75, and 6 s for individuals aged >75 when screening elderly persons for locomotive syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: We propose using a GLFS-25 score of 16 and/or a cutoff for the IA-OLS time of 19 s for individuals aged ≤70, 10 s for individuals aged >70 and ≤75, and 6 s for individuals aged >75 when screening elderly persons to determine who should receive medical intervention or undergoing training programs.
Authors: Praval Khanal; Lingxiao He; Georgina K Stebbings; Gladys L Onambele-Pearson; Hans Degens; Alun G Williams; Martine Thomis; Christopher I Morse Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 3.636