4.7 Review

Gait Speed as a Measure in Geriatric Assessment in Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/gls174

关键词

Gait speed; Geriatric assessment; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Clinical settings

资金

  1. University of Queensland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Gait speed is a quick, inexpensive, reliable measure of functional capacity with well-documented predictive value for major health-related outcomes. Numerous epidemiological studies have documented gait speed in healthy, community-dwelling older people. The purpose of this study is to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of gait speed in a specific group with mobility limitations-geriatric patients in clinical settings. Methods. Relevant databases were searched systematically for original research articles published in February 2011 measuring gait speed in persons aged 70 or older in hospital inpatient or outpatients settings. Meta-analysis determined gait speed data for each setting adjusting for covariates. Results. The review included 48 studies providing data from 7,000 participants. Across the hospital settings, the gait speed estimate for usual pace was 0.58 m/s (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.67) and for maximal pace was 0.89 m/s (95% CI: 0.75-1.02). These estimates were based on most recent year of publication (2011) and median percentage of female participants (63%). Gait speed at usual pace in acute care settings was 0.46 m/s (95% CI: 0.34-0.57), which was significantly slower than the gait speed of 0.74 m/s (95% CI: 0.65-0.83) recorded in outpatient settings. Conclusions. Gait speed is an important measure in comprehensive geriatric assessment. The consolidation of data from multiple studies reported in this meta-analysis highlights the mobility limitations experienced by older people in clinical settings and the need for ongoing rehabilitation to attain levels sufficient for reintegration in the community.

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

4.7
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