Pedro L Valenzuela1, Nicola A Maffiuletti2, Hugo Saner3,4, Narayan Schütz4, Beatrice Rudin5, Tobias Nef6, Prabitha Urwyler4,6,7. 1. Department of Systems Biology, University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain. 2. Human Performance Lab, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Gerontechnology & Rehabilitation Group, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Höhere Fachschule Pflege, Berufsbildungszentrum Olten, Olten, Switzerland. 6. ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 7. Department of Neurology, University Neurorehabilitation Unit, University Hospital Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isometric strength measures and timed up and go (TUG) tests are both recognized as valuable tools for fall prediction in older adults. However, results from direct comparison of these two tests are lacking. We aimed to assess the potential of isometric strength measures and the different modalities of the TUG test to detect individuals at risk of falling. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study including 24 community-dwelling older adults (≥65 years, 19 females, 88±7 years). Participants performed three variations of the TUG test (standard, counting and holding a full cup) and three isometric strength tests (handgrip, knee extension and hip flexion) at several time points (at baseline and every ~6 weeks) during a one-year follow-up. The association between these tests and the incidence of falls during the follow-up was assessed. RESULTS: Twelve participants out of 24 participants experienced falls during the follow-up. Fallers showed a significantly lower handgrip strength (-5.7 kg, 95% confidence interval: -10.4 to -1.1, p=0.019) and knee extension strength (-4.9 kg, -9.6 to -0.2, p=0.042) at follow-up, while no significant differences were found for any TUG variation. CONCLUSIONS: Handgrip and knee extension strength measures - particularly when assessed regularly over time - have the potential to serve as a simple and easy tool for detecting individuals at risk of falling as compared to functional mobility measures (ie, TUG test).
BACKGROUND: Isometric strength measures and timed up and go (TUG) tests are both recognized as valuable tools for fall prediction in older adults. However, results from direct comparison of these two tests are lacking. We aimed to assess the potential of isometric strength measures and the different modalities of the TUG test to detect individuals at risk of falling. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study including 24 community-dwelling older adults (≥65 years, 19 females, 88±7 years). Participants performed three variations of the TUG test (standard, counting and holding a full cup) and three isometric strength tests (handgrip, knee extension and hip flexion) at several time points (at baseline and every ~6 weeks) during a one-year follow-up. The association between these tests and the incidence of falls during the follow-up was assessed. RESULTS: Twelve participants out of 24 participants experienced falls during the follow-up. Fallers showed a significantly lower handgrip strength (-5.7 kg, 95% confidence interval: -10.4 to -1.1, p=0.019) and knee extension strength (-4.9 kg, -9.6 to -0.2, p=0.042) at follow-up, while no significant differences were found for any TUG variation. CONCLUSIONS: Handgrip and knee extension strength measures - particularly when assessed regularly over time - have the potential to serve as a simple and easy tool for detecting individuals at risk of falling as compared to functional mobility measures (ie, TUG test).
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Joke M Rijk; Paul Rkm Roos; Laura Deckx; Marjan van den Akker; Frank Buntinx Journal: Geriatr Gerontol Int Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 2.730
Authors: Pedro L Valenzuela; Adrián Castillo-García; Javier S Morales; Mikel Izquierdo; José A Serra-Rexach; Alejandro Santos-Lozano; Alejandro Lucia Journal: Compr Physiol Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 9.090
Authors: Carolina H Y Ling; Diana Taekema; Anton J M de Craen; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Rudi G J Westendorp; Andrea B Maier Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Gülistan Bahat; Jürgen Bauer; Yves Boirie; Olivier Bruyère; Tommy Cederholm; Cyrus Cooper; Francesco Landi; Yves Rolland; Avan Aihie Sayer; Stéphane M Schneider; Cornel C Sieber; Eva Topinkova; Maurits Vandewoude; Marjolein Visser; Mauro Zamboni Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Narayan Schütz; Hugo Saner; Beatrice Rudin; Angela Botros; Bruno Pais; Valérie Santschi; Philipp Buluschek; Daniel Gatica-Perez; Prabitha Urwyler; Laura Marchal-Crespo; René M Müri; Tobias Nef Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Giulia Ogliari; Jesper Ryg; Karen Andersen-Ranberg; Lasse Lybecker Scheel-Hincke; Jemima T Collins; Alison Cowley; Claudio Di Lorito; Louise Howe; Katie R Robinson; Vicky Booth; David A Walsh; John R F Gladman; Rowan H Harwood; Tahir Masud Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 3.269
Authors: Stefano Gobbo; Francesco Favro; Valentina Bullo; Lucia Cugusi; Andrea Di Blasio; Alessandro Bortoletto; Danilo Sales Bocalini; Andrea Gasperetti; Andrea Ermolao; Marco Bergamin Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 4.755