| Literature DB >> 32620119 |
Ryosuke Tokida1, Shota Ikegami2,3, Jun Takahashi4, Yoshikazu Ido1, Ayaka Sato1, Noriko Sakai5, Hiroshi Horiuchi1, Hiroyuki Kato1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Locomotive syndrome (LoS) is defined as the loss of mobility due to age-related impairment of motor organs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and severity of LoS, muscular strength and balancing ability, and prevalence of sarcopenia in relation to the presence of LoS according to sex and age groups ranging between 50 and 89 years.Entities:
Keywords: Cross-sectional survey; Epidemiological study; Locomotion, physical examination; Prevalence; Sarcopenia
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32620119 PMCID: PMC7334862 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03469-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Flow-chart of participants from a cooperating town
Characteristics of 413 subjects in the Obuse study cohort
| Age strata | N | Height | Weight | BMI | SMI | Job | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 50–59 | 50 | 171.8 (5.9) | 67.1 (9.0) | 22.7 (2.9) | 7.6 (0.7) | 3; 7; 40; 0 |
| 60–69 | 53 | 166.7 (4.7) | 66.9 (7.7) | 24.1 (2.7) | 7.5 (0.6) | 18; 5; 19; 11 | |
| 70–79 | 55 | 163.2 (4.9) | 60.0 (10.2) | 22.5 (3.4) | 7.0 (0.7) | 22; 2; 8; 23 | |
| 80–89 | 45 | 160.1 (5.6) | 57.5 (8.4) | 22.4 (2.7) | 7.0 (0.9) | 19; 0; 3; 23 | |
| Total | 203 | 165.6 (6.8) | 63.0 (9.8) | 22.9 (3.0) | 7.3 (0.8) | 62; 14; 70; 57 | |
| Female | 50–59 | 47 | 158.1 (4.9) | 55.4 (8.9) | 22.2 (3.8) | 5.9 (0.6) | 5; 4; 29; 9 |
| 60–69 | 61 | 152.8 (5.3) | 52.2 (7.6) | 22.3 (2.7) | 5.9 (0.5) | 21; 4; 17; 19 | |
| 70–79 | 54 | 149.7 (5.3) | 50.6 (7.9) | 22.6 (3.2) | 6.1 (0.6) | 16; 4; 8; 26 | |
| 80–89 | 48 | 144.6 (5.8) | 48.3 (7.8) | 23.1 (3.3) | 6.1 (0.7) | 11; 0; 5; 32 | |
| Total | 210 | 151.3 (7.1) | 51.6 (8.4) | 22.5 (3.2) | 6.0 (0.6) | 53; 12; 59; 86 |
Note: Values represent mean (standard deviation).
Abbreviations: BMI Body Mass Index; SMI Skeletal Muscle Index; Pri Primary industry employment; Sec Secondary industry employment; Ter Tertiary industry employment
Results of physical performance tests in each subject group
| Age strata (years) | Knee extension strength | OLS time (sec) | Grip strength (kg) | SUT | TST score | 25-qGLFS score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 50–59 | 1.8 (0.5) | 51.5 (13.4) | 40.0 (6.9) | 5 | 1.6 (0.2) | 2.9 (3.5) |
| 60–69 | 1.7 (0.5) | 46.0 (16.9) | 36.8 (6.0) | 4 | 1.5 (0.2) | 5.1 (5.6) | |
| 70–79 | 1.3 (0.4) | 24.6 (17.1) | 31.1 (5.2) | 4 | 1.4 (0.2) | 9.4 (11.1) | |
| 80–89 | 1.0 (0.4) | 13.2 (13.7) | 25.1 (5.2) | 3 | 1.1 (0.3) | 14.3 (14.1) | |
| Female | 50–59 | 1.4 (0.4) | 46.9 (16.2) | 25.4 (5.2) | 4 | 1.5 (0.1) | 5.0 (4.8) |
| 60–69 | 1.2 (0.4) | 43.2 (17.0) | 21.8 (3.9) | 4 | 1.4 (0.1) | 4.4 (4.6) | |
| 70–79 | 0.9 (0.3) | 23.0 (15.9) | 20.5 (3.9) | 3 | 1.3 (0.4) | 13.9 (15.8) | |
| 80–89 | 0.8 (0.3) | 10.9 (12.4) | 17.1 (3.6) | 3 | 1.1 (0.3) | 18.9 (14.8) |
Note: Values represent mean (standard deviation).
Abbreviations: OLS One-leg standing; SUT Stand-up test; TST Two-step test; 25-qGLFS 25-Question geriatric locomotive function scale
Fig. 2Prevalence of locomotive syndrome. *p < 0.05
Prevalence by age and sex as evaluated in the locomotive syndrome risk test
| Age strata (years) | N | Unable to complete one-leg SUT from ≥40 cm | TST < 1.3 | 25-qGLFS score ≥ 7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 50–59 | 50 | 14 (28.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | 6 (12.0%) |
| 60–69 | 53 | 28 (52.8%) | 5 (9.4%) | 12 (22.6%) | |
| 70–79 | 55 | 49 (89.1%) | 16 (29.1%) | 22 (40.0%) | |
| 80–89 | 45 | 45 (100%) | 32 (71.1%) | 28 (62.2%) | |
| Female | 50–59 | 47 | 26 (55.3%) | 1 (2.1%) | 13 (27.7%) |
| 60–69 | 61 | 32 (52.5%) | 8 (13.1%) | 12 (19.7%) | |
| 70–79 | 54 | 48 (88.9%) | 20 (37.0%) | 30 (55.6%) | |
| 80–89 | 48 | 46 (95.8%) | 37 (77.1%) | 41 (85.4%) |
Note: Values represent number (prevalence)
Abbreviations: SUT Stand-up test; TST Two-step test; 25-qGLFS 25-Question geriatric locomotive function scale
Fig. 3Comparison of knee extension strength between participants indicated no-locomotive syndrome and those indicated locomotive syndrome. Values represent mean (standard deviation). LoS, locomotive syndrome. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
Fig. 4Comparison of one-leg standing test between participants indicated no-locomotive syndrome and those indicated locomotive syndrome. Values represent mean (standard deviation). LoS, locomotive syndrome. *p < 0.05
Fig. 5Prevalence of sarcopenia. *p < 0.05
Screening for locomotive syndrome based on the diagnosis of sarcopenia
| Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive likelihood ratio | Negative likelihood ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 17% (15–18%) | 96% (83–99%) | 4.71 (0.91–27.4) | 0.86 (0.82–1.01) |
| Female | 5% (3–6%) | 97% (87–99%) | 1.51 (0.26–9.39) | 0.98 (0.95–1.11) |
| Total | 11% (10–12%) | 96% (89–99%) | 3.12 (0.88–11.8) | 0.92 (0.89–1.01) |
Note: Values represent with (95% confidence intervals)
Sensitivity analysis for misclassifications of sarcopenia
| Sensitivity of sarcopenia diagnosis in LoS (+) | Sensitivity of sarcopenia diagnosis in LoS (−) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100% | 90% | 80% | 70% | 60% | 50% | |
| 100% | 3.4 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| 90% | 3.8 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 1.8 |
| 80% | 4.4 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 2.1 |
| 70% | 5.1 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 2.5 |
| 60% | 6.2 | 5.5 | 4.9 | 4.3 | 3.6 | 3.0 |
| 50% | 7.8 | 7.0 | 6.1 | 5.3 | 4.5 | 3.7 |
Note: Values represent adjusted odds ratio between sarcopenia and locomotive syndrome
Abbreviations: LoS Locomotive syndrome