English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 17939/22958 (78%)
Visitors : 7374810      Online Users : 230
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ir.csmu.edu.tw:8080/ir/handle/310902500/12109


    Title: Motor dual-task Timed Up & Go test better identifies prefrailty individuals than single-task Timed Up & Go test
    Authors: Pei-Fang Tang;Hao-Jan Yang;Ya-Chi Peng;Hui-Ya Chen
    Contributors: 中山醫學大學
    Keywords: frail elderly;middle aged;mobility limitation;sensitivity and specificity
    Date: 2015-02
    Issue Date: 2015-08-19T10:40:07Z (UTC)
    Abstract: Aim
    The present study investigated whether dual-task Timed Up & Go tests (TUG) could identify prefrail individuals more sensitively than the single-task TUG (TUGsingle) in community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults.

    Methods
    This cross-sectional study recruited adults aged 50 years and older who actively participated in local community programs. Time taken to complete single-task TUG and dual-task TUG, carrying a cup of water (TUGmanual) or carrying out serial-3 subtraction (TUGcognitive) while executing TUG, was measured. Prefrailty status was defined based on Fried's phenotypic definition.

    Results
    Of the 65 participants (mean age 71.5 ± 8.1 years), 33.3% of the 12 middle-aged (50–64 years) and 62.3% of the 53 older (≥65 years) adults were prefrail, mainly as a result of weak grip strength. The receiver operating characteristic curve analyses for differentiating prefrailty from non-frailty showed that the area under the curve (AUC) for TUGmanual (0.73, 95% CI 0.60–0.86) was better than that for TUGsingle (0.67, 95% CI 0.54–0.80), whereas the AUC value was not significant for TUGcognitive (0.60, 95% CI 0.46–0.74). The optimal cut-off points for detecting prefrailty using TUGsingle, TUGmanual and TUGcognitive were 7.7 s (sensitivity 68%), 8.2 s (sensitivity 83%), and 14.3 s (sensitivity 29%), respectively. After adjusting for age, logistic regression analyses showed that individuals with TUGmanual 8.2 s or slower were 7.2-fold more likely to have prefrailty than those with TUGmanual faster than 8.2 s.

    Conclusion
    TUGmanual is more valid and sensitive than TUGsingle in identifying prefrail individuals. The TUGmanual thus could serve as a screening tool for early detection of individuals with prefrailty in community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults.
    URI: https://ir.csmu.edu.tw:8080/ir/handle/310902500/12109
    Relation: Geriatrics & Gerontology International Volume 15, Issue 2, pages 204–210, February 2015
    Appears in Collections:[公共衛生學系暨碩士班] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML445View/Open


    SFX Query

    All items in CSMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback