Xianyang Sherman Yee1, Yee Sien Ng2,3,4, John Carson Allen2, Aisyah Latib5, Ee Ling Tay6, Huda Mukhlis Abu Bakar7, Chien Yee Jolene Ho7, Wan Cheen Charissa Koh5, Hwee Heem Theresa Kwek8, Laura Tay9. 1. Duke-NUS Medical School, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. E0178638@u.duke.nus.edu. 2. Duke-NUS Medical School, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Singapore General Hospital and Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 4. Geriatric Education and Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore. 5. Health Services Research and Evaluation, SingHealth, Singapore, Singapore. 6. Department of Physiotherapy, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 7. Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 8. Deparment of Dietetics, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 9. Department of General Medicine (Geriatric Medicine), Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sit-to-stand (STS) test has been deployed as surrogate measures of strength or physical performance in sarcopenia diagnosis. This study examines the relationship of two common STS variants - Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (5TSTS) and 30 s Chair Stand Test (30CST) - with grip strength, muscle mass and functional measures, and their impact on sarcopenia prevalence in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of 887 community-dwelling adults aged ≥50 years. Participants completed a battery of physical fitness tests - 5TSTS, 30CST, grip strength, gait speed, Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) for dynamic balance and six-minute walk test (6MWT) for cardiorespiratory endurance. Muscle mass was measured using multi-frequency segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). We performed correlation analysis between STS performance and other fitness measures and muscle mass, followed by multiple linear regression for the independent determinants of STS performance. RESULTS: Mean participant age was 67.3±7 years, with female predominance (72.9%). STS tests exhibited weak correlations with grip strength (30CST, r = 0.290; 5TSTS, r = - 0.242; both p< 0.01), and stronger correlations with gait speed (30CST, r = 0.517; 5TSTS, r = - 0.533; both p< 0.01), endurance (30CST, r = 0.558; 5TSTS, r = - 0.531; both p < 0.01) and dynamic balance (30CST, r = - 0.501; 5TSTS, r = 0.646; both p< 0.01). Muscle mass correlated with grip strength but not STS. In multiple regression analysis, all fitness measures were independently associated with 30CST performance. Performance in both STS tests remained independent of muscle mass. There was no significant difference in prevalence of possible sarcopenia diagnosis using grip strength or STS (30CST, 25.0%; 5TSTS, 22.1%; grip strength, 22.3%; p = 0.276). When both measures are used, prevalence is significantly higher (42.0%; p = 0.276). Prevalence of confirmed sarcopenia with inclusion of muscle mass was significantly lower using STS compared with grip strength (30CST, 4.6%; 5TSTS, 4.1% vs. grip strength, 7.1%; p< 0.05). CONCLUSION: In the sarcopenia construct, STS tests better represents muscle physical performance rather than muscle strength. Different subsets of population with possible sarcopenia are identified depending on the test used. The lack of association of STS performance with muscle mass results in a lower prevalence of confirmed sarcopenia compared with grip strength, but may better reflect changes in muscle quality.
BACKGROUND: The sit-to-stand (STS) test has been deployed as surrogate measures of strength or physical performance in sarcopenia diagnosis. This study examines the relationship of two common STS variants - Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (5TSTS) and 30 s Chair Stand Test (30CST) - with grip strength, muscle mass and functional measures, and their impact on sarcopenia prevalence in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of 887 community-dwelling adults aged ≥50 years. Participants completed a battery of physical fitness tests - 5TSTS, 30CST, grip strength, gait speed, Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) for dynamic balance and six-minute walk test (6MWT) for cardiorespiratory endurance. Muscle mass was measured using multi-frequency segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). We performed correlation analysis between STS performance and other fitness measures and muscle mass, followed by multiple linear regression for the independent determinants of STS performance. RESULTS: Mean participant age was 67.3±7 years, with female predominance (72.9%). STS tests exhibited weak correlations with grip strength (30CST, r = 0.290; 5TSTS, r = - 0.242; both p< 0.01), and stronger correlations with gait speed (30CST, r = 0.517; 5TSTS, r = - 0.533; both p< 0.01), endurance (30CST, r = 0.558; 5TSTS, r = - 0.531; both p < 0.01) and dynamic balance (30CST, r = - 0.501; 5TSTS, r = 0.646; both p< 0.01). Muscle mass correlated with grip strength but not STS. In multiple regression analysis, all fitness measures were independently associated with 30CST performance. Performance in both STS tests remained independent of muscle mass. There was no significant difference in prevalence of possible sarcopenia diagnosis using grip strength or STS (30CST, 25.0%; 5TSTS, 22.1%; grip strength, 22.3%; p = 0.276). When both measures are used, prevalence is significantly higher (42.0%; p = 0.276). Prevalence of confirmed sarcopenia with inclusion of muscle mass was significantly lower using STS compared with grip strength (30CST, 4.6%; 5TSTS, 4.1% vs. grip strength, 7.1%; p< 0.05). CONCLUSION: In the sarcopenia construct, STS tests better represents muscle physical performance rather than muscle strength. Different subsets of population with possible sarcopenia are identified depending on the test used. The lack of association of STS performance with muscle mass results in a lower prevalence of confirmed sarcopenia compared with grip strength, but may better reflect changes in muscle quality.
Authors: Laura Bg Tay; Melvin Pw Chua; Ee Ling Tay; Hiu Nam Chan; Shi Min Mah; Aisyah Latib; Cheryl Qy Wong; Yee Sien Ng Journal: Ann Acad Med Singapore Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.473
Authors: Erick P de Oliveira; Laura Cristina Jardim Porto; Lara Vilar Fernandes; Alexandre Elias Gomes Paiva; Ana Clara Borges Silva; Isabela Coelho de Castro; Andrezza Fernanda Santiago Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Simeon Schietzel; Patricia O Chocano-Bedoya; Angelique Sadlon; Michael Gagesch; Walter C Willett; Endel J Orav; Reto W Kressig; Bruno Vellas; René Rizzoli; José A P da Silva; Michael Blauth; John A Kanis; Andreas Egli; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Lawrence D Hayes; Bradley T Elliott; Zerbu Yasar; Theodoros M Bampouras; Nicholas F Sculthorpe; Nilihan E M Sanal-Hayes; Christopher Hurst Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 4.566