4.6 Article

Tongue Strength Is Associated with Jumping Mechanography Performance and Handgrip Strength but Not with Classic Functional Tests in Older Adults

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 61, 期 3, 页码 418-422

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.12124

关键词

sarcopenia; swallowing; jumping mechanography; muscle function; tongue strength

资金

  1. Merck Co., Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine whether classic muscle function tests and jumping mechanography (JM) are related to tongue strength. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Community. Participants Ninety-seven community-dwelling individuals aged 70 and older (49 female, 48 male, mean age 80.7, range 7095) with and without identified sarcopenia. Measurements Participants performed muscle function tests including the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), grip strength, and JM. Isometric tongue strength was evaluated using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI). JM consisted of maximal countermovement jumps performed on a force plate to calculate weight-corrected peak power and jump height. Total body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to assess appendicular lean mass (ALM) to define sarcopenia based on commonly used ALM/height2 cutoffs. Associations between IOPI measures and other muscle function tests were evaluated. Results Sarcopenia was present in 23.7% (23/97) of this cohort. Anterior isometric tongue pressure was positively correlated with grip strength (P=.003), jump height (P=.01), and power (P=.04). Individuals in the lowest tertile of tongue pressure had lower scores on these muscle function tests than individuals in the other tertiles. Classic functional tests and ALM/height2 were unrelated to tongue strength. Conclusion In older adults with and without sarcopenia, isometric tongue pressure is positively correlated with grip strength and jump height and power. These data support consideration of oropharyngeal functional decline as part of the sarcopenia syndrome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据