scholarly journals Sensory thresholds in older adults: Reproducibility and reference values

1994 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 454-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Nico D. de Neeling ◽  
Pieter J. Beks ◽  
Frits W. Bertelsmann ◽  
Robert J. Heine ◽  
Lex M. Bouter
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Wiśniowska-Szurlej ◽  
Agnieszka Ćwirlej-Sozańska ◽  
Justyna Kilian ◽  
Natalia Wołoszyn ◽  
Bernard Sozański ◽  
...  

AbstractHandgrip strength (HGS) is used as a biomarker for the state of health of older people, but the number of research publications containing the normative values of HGS in older adult populations is limited. The aim of the study was to define reference values and factors associated with HGS in older adults living in southeastern Poland. A cross-sectional study including 405 participants aged 65 and older was conducted. Handgrip strength for the dominant hand was assessed by the average of three trials using a JAMAR dynamometer. The sample was categorized into the following age groups: 65–69 years, 70–74 years, 75–79 years, 80–84 years, 85 and over. The average HGS was 19.98 kg (16.91 kg for women and 26.19 kg for men). There was a decrease in handgrip strength across the age range in both sexes. The average handgrip strength of the older people was 17.97 kg (14.47 kg for women and 25.66 kg for men) for those aged 80–85 and 16.68 kg (13.51 kg for women and 21.77 kg for men) in the group over 85 years old. In both sexes, marital status was an independent factor associated with reduced handgrip strength. In conclusion, this study described, for the first time, handgrip strength values for the southeastern Polish population aged ≥ 65 years according to age and gender.


2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Dewhurst ◽  
Luigi Y. Di Marco ◽  
Felicity Dewhurst ◽  
Philip C. Adams ◽  
Alan Murray ◽  
...  

Maturitas ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 396-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Carlos Millán-Calenti ◽  
Alba Sánchez ◽  
Laura Lorenzo-López ◽  
Ana Maseda

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (02) ◽  
pp. 91-99
Author(s):  
Frances Rom Lunar ◽  
Jan Paul Marquez ◽  
Francine Kier Quianzon ◽  
Ben Joshua Policarpio ◽  
Leslie Anne Santelices ◽  
...  

Background: The impact of residential setting on the performance of older adults on commonly used instruments of mobility has not been closely investigated.Objective: This study aimed to (1) explore whether mobility test performance differed between those who lived in urban and rural communities, and (2) report preliminary reference values for these tests according to residential setting.Methods: The study used a descriptive design. Individuals who were aged 60 years and above, had no significant disability, and resided in urban and rural areas in the Philippines ([Formula: see text]), participated in the study. Researchers measured mobility performance using the 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT) (both comfortable gait velocity (CGV) and fast gait velocity (FGV)), Five Times Sit to Stand Test (FTSST), and Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). Preliminary reference values for the mobility tests were presented as means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals. Scores were compared based on residential setting (urban versus rural).Results: Urban-dwellers scored consistently better compared to their rural counterparts on the CGV, FGV, FTSST, and 6MWT using independent samples [Formula: see text]-test ([Formula: see text]). Data were further divided according to age and sex, and comparison of the mobility test scores between urban- and rural-dwellers within each subgroup showed similar differences ([Formula: see text]).Conclusion: Results provide preliminary evidence for the influence of residential setting on the mobility test performance of Filipino older adults. The study provides a good starting point for confirmatory research with a representative sample to (1) illustrate differences in mobility performance according to residential setting, (2) investigate how specific factors associated with residential settings contribute to differences in mobility performance, and (3) determine the extent to which clinicians should consider an older person’s residential setting when interpreting mobility test results.


Neurology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marnee J. McKay ◽  
Jennifer N. Baldwin ◽  
Paulo Ferreira ◽  
Milena Simic ◽  
Natalie Vanicek ◽  
...  

Objective:To establish reference values for isometric strength of 12 muscle groups and flexibility of 13 joint movements in 1,000 children and adults and investigate the influence of demographic and anthropometric factors.Methods:A standardized reliable protocol of hand-held and fixed dynamometry for isometric strength of ankle, knee, hip, elbow, and shoulder musculature as well as goniometry for flexibility of the ankle, knee, hip, elbow, shoulder, and cervical spine was performed in an observational study investigating 1,000 healthy male and female participants aged 3–101 years. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with strength and flexibility of children, adolescents, adults, and older adults.Results:Normative reference values of 25 strength and flexibility measures were generated. Strong linear correlations between age and strength were identified in the first 2 decades of life. Muscle strength significantly decreased with age in older adults. Regression modeling identified increasing height as the most significant predictor of strength in children, higher body mass in adolescents, and male sex in adults and older adults. Joint flexibility gradually decreased with age, with little sex difference. Waist circumference was a significant predictor of variability in joint flexibility in adolescents, adults, and older adults.Conclusions:Reference values and associated age- and sex-stratified z scores generated from this study can be used to determine the presence and extent of impairments associated with neuromuscular and other neurologic disorders, monitor disease progression over time in natural history studies, and evaluate the effect of new treatments in clinical trials.


1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard W. Bohannon ◽  
A. Williams Andrews ◽  
Michael W. Thomas

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document