Extracted step parameters during the timed up and go test discriminate between groups with different levels of cognitive ability-a cross-sectional study.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY BMC Geriatrics Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1186/s12877-025-05828-6
Niklas Löfgren, Lars Berglund, Vilmantas Giedraitis, Kjartan Halvorsen, Erik Rosendahl, Kevin J McKee, Anna Cristina Åberg
{"title":"Extracted step parameters during the timed up and go test discriminate between groups with different levels of cognitive ability-a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Niklas Löfgren, Lars Berglund, Vilmantas Giedraitis, Kjartan Halvorsen, Erik Rosendahl, Kevin J McKee, Anna Cristina Åberg","doi":"10.1186/s12877-025-05828-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Identifying cognitive impairment at an early stage is important to enable preventive treatment and lifestyle changes. As gait deviations precede cognitive impairment, the aim of this study was to investigate if step parameters during different Timed Up and Go (TUG) conditions could discriminate between people with different cognitive ability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (N = 304) were divided into the following groups: (1) controls, n = 50, mean age:73, 44% women; (2) Subjective cognitive Impairment (SCI), n = 71, mean age:67, 45% women; (3) Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), n = 126, mean age: 73, 42% women; and (4) dementia disorders, n = 57, mean age: 78, 51% women. Participants conducted TUG and two motor-cognitive TUG-conditions: TUG while naming animals (TUGdt-NA) and reciting months in reverse order (TUGdt-MB). Tests were video recorded for data extraction of valid spatiotemporal parameters: step length, step width, step duration, single step duration and double step duration. Step length was investigated with the step length/body height ratio (step length divided by body height). Logistic regression models (adjusted for age, sex and education) investigated associations between step parameters and dichotomous variables of groups adjacent in cognitive ability: dementia disorders vs. MCI, MCI vs. SCI, and SCI vs. controls. Results were presented as standardized odds ratios (sORs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI<sup>95</sup>) and p-values (significance level: p < 0.05). The areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were presented for the step parameters/conditions with the highest sORs and, where relevant, optimal cutoff values were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Step length showed greatest overall ability to significantly discriminate between adjacent groups (sOR ≤ . 67, CI<sup>95</sup>: .45-.99, p = ≤ . 047) during all group comparisons/conditions except three. The highest sOR for step-length was obtained when discriminating between SCI vs controls during TUGdt-MB (sOR = .51, CI<sup>95</sup>:.29- .87, p = .014), whereby the area under the curve was calculated (c-statistics = .700). The optimal cut-off indicated a step length of less than 32.9% (CI<sup>95</sup> = 22.1-43.0) of body height to identify SCI compared with controls.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results indicate that step length may be important to assess during TUG, for discrimination between groups with different cognitive ability; and that the presented cut-off has potential to aid early detection of cognitive impairment.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05893524 (retrospectively registered 08/06/23).</p>","PeriodicalId":9056,"journal":{"name":"BMC Geriatrics","volume":"25 1","pages":"182"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11912623/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Geriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-05828-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Identifying cognitive impairment at an early stage is important to enable preventive treatment and lifestyle changes. As gait deviations precede cognitive impairment, the aim of this study was to investigate if step parameters during different Timed Up and Go (TUG) conditions could discriminate between people with different cognitive ability.

Methods: Participants (N = 304) were divided into the following groups: (1) controls, n = 50, mean age:73, 44% women; (2) Subjective cognitive Impairment (SCI), n = 71, mean age:67, 45% women; (3) Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), n = 126, mean age: 73, 42% women; and (4) dementia disorders, n = 57, mean age: 78, 51% women. Participants conducted TUG and two motor-cognitive TUG-conditions: TUG while naming animals (TUGdt-NA) and reciting months in reverse order (TUGdt-MB). Tests were video recorded for data extraction of valid spatiotemporal parameters: step length, step width, step duration, single step duration and double step duration. Step length was investigated with the step length/body height ratio (step length divided by body height). Logistic regression models (adjusted for age, sex and education) investigated associations between step parameters and dichotomous variables of groups adjacent in cognitive ability: dementia disorders vs. MCI, MCI vs. SCI, and SCI vs. controls. Results were presented as standardized odds ratios (sORs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI95) and p-values (significance level: p < 0.05). The areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were presented for the step parameters/conditions with the highest sORs and, where relevant, optimal cutoff values were calculated.

Results: Step length showed greatest overall ability to significantly discriminate between adjacent groups (sOR ≤ . 67, CI95: .45-.99, p = ≤ . 047) during all group comparisons/conditions except three. The highest sOR for step-length was obtained when discriminating between SCI vs controls during TUGdt-MB (sOR = .51, CI95:.29- .87, p = .014), whereby the area under the curve was calculated (c-statistics = .700). The optimal cut-off indicated a step length of less than 32.9% (CI95 = 22.1-43.0) of body height to identify SCI compared with controls.

Conclusions: The results indicate that step length may be important to assess during TUG, for discrimination between groups with different cognitive ability; and that the presented cut-off has potential to aid early detection of cognitive impairment.

Trial registration number: NCT05893524 (retrospectively registered 08/06/23).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Geriatrics
BMC Geriatrics GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
873
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Geriatrics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the health and healthcare of older people, including the effects of healthcare systems and policies. The journal also welcomes research focused on the aging process, including cellular, genetic, and physiological processes and cognitive modifications.
期刊最新文献
A meta-analysis of the impact of initial hemodialysis access type on mortality in elderly incident hemodialysis population. Association between exposure to organophosphate esters and cognitive function in older adults in the United States: NHANES 2011-2014. Gender differences in the association between elder abuse and pain with depression among older adults in India: insights from a cross-sectional survey. Key informants' perceptions of telehealth palliative care for people living with dementia in nursing homes. Association between early sitting and functional mobility recovery after hip-fracture surgery in older patients: a prospective cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1