Dylan R Kirn1, Kieran F Reid1, Cynthia Hau1, Edward M Phillips2, Roger A Fielding3. 1. Nutrition, Exercise Physiology, and Sarcopenia Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Nutrition, Exercise Physiology, and Sarcopenia Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Institute of Lifestyle Medicine, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Nutrition, Exercise Physiology, and Sarcopenia Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. roger.fielding@tufts.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Muscle power is a key predictor of physical function in older adults; however, clinically meaningful improvements in leg-extensor muscle power have yet to be identified. The purpose of this study is to establish the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and substantial improvement (SI) for leg-extensor power and muscle contraction velocity in mobility-limited older adults. METHODS: Data were extracted from three randomized trials of leg-extensor muscle power training interventions (3- to 6-month duration). Measurements of leg-extensor power and velocity were obtained using dynamic bilateral leg press at 40% and 70% of the one-repetition maximum. Anchor-based MCIIs were calculated using selected items extracted from the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument. Standard error of measurement and effect size methods were used to calculate the distribution-based MCII. RESULTS: Data from 164 participants (mean age: 76.6 ± 5.6 years; Short Physical Performance Battery score: 7.8 ± 1.3) were used in this analysis. The respective MCII and SI estimates for 40% leg-extensor power were 18.3 (9%) and 30.5 (15%) W, and 23.1 (10%) and 41.6 (18%) W for 70% leg-extensor power. The respective MCII and SI estimates for 40% average velocity were 0.03(7%) and 0.08(18%) m/s, and 0.02(6%) and 0.05(15%) m/s for 70% average velocity. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to establish a clinically meaningful improvement of leg-extensor power (9%-10%) and velocity (6%-7%) in mobility-limited older adults. These findings should be used to aid in the design and interpretation of clinical trials and interventions that target improvements in muscle power in this high-risk population.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Muscle power is a key predictor of physical function in older adults; however, clinically meaningful improvements in leg-extensor muscle power have yet to be identified. The purpose of this study is to establish the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and substantial improvement (SI) for leg-extensor power and muscle contraction velocity in mobility-limited older adults. METHODS: Data were extracted from three randomized trials of leg-extensor muscle power training interventions (3- to 6-month duration). Measurements of leg-extensor power and velocity were obtained using dynamic bilateral leg press at 40% and 70% of the one-repetition maximum. Anchor-based MCIIs were calculated using selected items extracted from the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument. Standard error of measurement and effect size methods were used to calculate the distribution-based MCII. RESULTS: Data from 164 participants (mean age: 76.6 ± 5.6 years; Short Physical Performance Battery score: 7.8 ± 1.3) were used in this analysis. The respective MCII and SI estimates for 40% leg-extensor power were 18.3 (9%) and 30.5 (15%) W, and 23.1 (10%) and 41.6 (18%) W for 70% leg-extensor power. The respective MCII and SI estimates for 40% average velocity were 0.03(7%) and 0.08(18%) m/s, and 0.02(6%) and 0.05(15%) m/s for 70% average velocity. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to establish a clinically meaningful improvement of leg-extensor power (9%-10%) and velocity (6%-7%) in mobility-limited older adults. These findings should be used to aid in the design and interpretation of clinical trials and interventions that target improvements in muscle power in this high-risk population.
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Alan M Jette; Wendy J Coster; Jill T Kooyoomjian; Suzette Levenson; Tim Heeren; Jacqueline Ashba Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jonathan F Bean; Dan K Kiely; Seth Herman; Suzanne G Leveille; Kelly Mizer; Walter R Frontera; Roger A Fielding Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kieran F Reid; Damien M Callahan; Robert J Carabello; Edward M Phillips; Walter R Frontera; Roger A Fielding Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Jonathan F Bean; Dan K Kiely; Sharon LaRose; Evelyn O'Neill; Richard Goldstein; Walter R Frontera Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Damien Callahan; Edward Phillips; Robert Carabello; Walter R Frontera; Roger A Fielding Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Christian Skou Eriksen; Ellen Garde; Nina Linde Reislev; Cathrine Lawaetz Wimmelmann; Theresa Bieler; Andreas Kraag Ziegler; Anne Theil Gylling; Kasper Juel Dideriksen; Hartwig Roman Siebner; Erik Lykke Mortensen; Michael Kjaer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jose A Parraca; José Carmelo Adsuar; Francisco Javier Domínguez-Muñoz; Sabina Barrios-Fernandez; Pablo Tomas-Carus Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2022-05-24
Authors: Davis A Englund; Lori Lyn Price; Gregory J Grosicki; Megumi Iwai; Makoto Kashiwa; Christine Liu; Kieran F Reid; Roger A Fielding Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Elisa F Ogawa; Rebekah Harris; Joseph M DeGutis; Rachel E Ward; Jennifer S Brach; Ildiko Halasz; Thomas G Travison; Jonathan F Bean Journal: Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl Date: 2021-03-09