Renwei Dong1, Xiuyang Wang2, Qi Guo3, Jiazhong Wang2, Wen Zhang2, Suxing Shen2, Peipei Han2, Yixuan Ma2, Li Kang2, Menglu Wang2, Liyuan Fu2, Liye Jia2, Liancheng Wang4, Kaijun Niu5. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Cardiovascular Clinical College of Tianjin Medical University, TEDA International Cardiovascular Hospital, Tianjin, China. Department of Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China. 2. Department of Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Cardiovascular Clinical College of Tianjin Medical University, TEDA International Cardiovascular Hospital, Tianjin, China. Department of Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China. guoqijp@gmail.com. 4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, China. 5. Nutritional Epidemiology Institute and School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More efficient clinical indexes are needed to identify older people most likely to present mobility impairments. The aim of the present study was to determine which handgrip strength (HS) indexes are clinically relevant to detect risk of mobility limitation in the elderly adults. In addition, we attempted to determine an optimal cutoff point for the most relevant index. METHODS: Data are from 469 men and 609 women aged 60 years and older recruited in the Hangu area of Tianjin, China. Participants scoring in the top 20% on the Timed Up and Go Test or in the slowest 20% for the 4-m walk test were defined as having mobility limitation. RESULTS: The prevalence of mobility limitation was 27.6% in women and 24.5% in men. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for HS/body fat mass was 0.723 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.658-0.788) in men and for HS/weight was 0.684 (95% CI = 0.628-0.739) in women. These values were indicated higher levels of mobility limitation compared with HS and other relative HS indexes. The cutoffs of the most relevant index in men and women that effectively identified individuals at risk of mobility limitation were 1.884 and 0.281, respectively. CONCLUSION: HS/body fat mass and HS/weight appear to be the indices best associated with mobility limitation for men and women, respectively. Optimal cutoffs for clinically relevant index have the potential to identify elderly adults at risk of mobility limitation.
BACKGROUND: More efficient clinical indexes are needed to identify older people most likely to present mobility impairments. The aim of the present study was to determine which handgrip strength (HS) indexes are clinically relevant to detect risk of mobility limitation in the elderly adults. In addition, we attempted to determine an optimal cutoff point for the most relevant index. METHODS: Data are from 469 men and 609 women aged 60 years and older recruited in the Hangu area of Tianjin, China. Participants scoring in the top 20% on the Timed Up and Go Test or in the slowest 20% for the 4-m walk test were defined as having mobility limitation. RESULTS: The prevalence of mobility limitation was 27.6% in women and 24.5% in men. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for HS/body fat mass was 0.723 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.658-0.788) in men and for HS/weight was 0.684 (95% CI = 0.628-0.739) in women. These values were indicated higher levels of mobility limitation compared with HS and other relative HS indexes. The cutoffs of the most relevant index in men and women that effectively identified individuals at risk of mobility limitation were 1.884 and 0.281, respectively. CONCLUSION:HS/body fat mass and HS/weight appear to be the indices best associated with mobility limitation for men and women, respectively. Optimal cutoffs for clinically relevant index have the potential to identify elderly adults at risk of mobility limitation.
Authors: Jeroen H P M van der Velde; Hans H C M Savelberg; Julianne D van der Berg; Simone J S Sep; Carla J H van der Kallen; Pieter C Dagnelie; Miranda T Schram; Ronald M A Henry; Petronella L M Reijven; Tineke A C M van Geel; Coen D A Stehouwer; Annemarie Koster; Nicolaas C Schaper Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Alex Barreto de Lima; Duarte Henrinques-Neto; Gustavo Dos Santos Ribeiro; Elvio Rúbio Gouveia; Fátima Baptista Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Zbigniew Marcin Ossowski; Wojciech Skrobot; Piotr Aschenbrenner; Vida Janina Cesnaitiene; Mirosław Smaruj Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 4.458