4.1 Review

Measurement of gait speed in older adults to identify complications associated with frailty: A systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 6, Issue 6, Pages 484-496

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2015.08.006

Keywords

Gait speed; Elderly; Frailty; Comprehensive geriatric assessment; Cancer; Screening test

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several frailty screening tests in older cancer patients were developed but their statistical performance is low. We aimed to assess whether measurement of usual gait speed (GS) alone could be used as a frailty screening test in older cancer patients. This systematic review was conducted on pub med between 1984 and 2014 and included reviews and original studies. Eligibility criteria were: GS over a short distance, alone or included in composite walking tests (Timed Get Up and Go test: TGUG, Short Physical Performance Battery: SPPB) in older people (aged 65 and over) living in a community setting and predictive value of GS on medical complications associated with frailty. 46 articles were finally selected. GS alone is consensual and recommended for screening sarcopenia in elderly. A slow GS is predictive of early death, disability, falls and hospitalization/institutionalization in older people living in a community setting. GS alone is comparable to composite walking tests that do not provide additional information on the medical complications associated with frailty. Despite few studies in geriatric oncology, GS seems to predict overall survival and disability. We suggest GS over 4 m (at a threshold of 1 m/s) as a new frailty screening test in older cancer patients (65 and over) to guide the implementation of a comprehensive geriatric assessment during the initial management phase or during follow-up. Prospective cohort studies are needed to validate this algorithm and compare it with other screening tool. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available