4.4 Article

Accuracy of the Timed Up and Go test for predicting sarcopenia in elderly hospitalized patients

期刊

CLINICS
卷 70, 期 5, 页码 369-372

出版社

HOSPITAL CLINICAS, UNIV SAO PAULO
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2015(05)11

关键词

Limitation of mobility; sarcopenia; elderly; hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: The ability of the Timed Up and Go test to predict sarcopenia has not been evaluated previously. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the Timed Up and Go test for predicting sarcopenia in elderly hospitalized patients. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed 68 elderly patients (>= years of age) in a private hospital in the city of Salvador-BA, Brazil, between the 1st and 5th day of hospitalization. The predictive variable was the Timed Up and Go test score, and the outcome of interest was the presence of sarcopenia (reduced muscle mass associated with a reduction in handgrip strength and/or weak physical performance in a 6-m gait-speed test). After the descriptive data analyses, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of a test using the predictive variable to predict the presence of sarcopenia were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 68 elderly individuals, with a mean age 70.4 +/- 7.7 years, were evaluated. The subjects had a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 5.35 +/- 1.97. Most (64.7%) of the subjects had a clinical admission profile; the main reasons for hospitalization were cardiovascular disorders (22.1%), pneumonia (19.1%) and abdominal disorders (10.2%). The frequency of sarcopenia in the sample was 22.1%, and the mean length of time spent performing the Timed Up and Go test was 10.02 +/- 5.38 s. A time longer than or equal to a cutoff of 10.85 s on the Timed Up and Go test predicted sarcopenia with a sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 88.7%. The accuracy of this cutoff for the Timed Up and Go test was good (0.80; IC = 0.66-0.94; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The Timed Up and Go test was shown to be a predictor of sarcopenia in elderly hospitalized patients.

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

4.4
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