Association between new indices in the locomotive syndrome risk test and decline in mobility: third survey of the ROAD study.
Association between new indices in the locomotive syndrome risk test and decline in mobility: third survey of the ROAD study.
复制标题
运动综合症风险测试中的新指数与活动能力下降之间的关联：ROAD 研究的第三次调查。
DOI：
10.1007/s00776-015-0741-5
复制
发表时间：
2015-09
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Nakamura K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yoshimura N;Muraki S;Oka H;Tanaka S;Ogata T;Kawaguchi H;Akune T;Nakamura K
我们的目的是阐明机车综合症风险测试中的新指数与活动能力下降之间的关联。在骨关节炎/骨质疏松症防治残疾研究（ROAD）的第三次调查中，从山区和沿海地区的 1721 名参与者中的 1575 名受试者（513 名男性，1062 名女性）获得了指数数据。作为行动能力下降的结果衡量指标，我们使用了五次坐站测试 (FTSST) 和步行速度，截止值分别为 12 s 和 0.8 m/s。我们首先估计了第一阶段运动综合症风险测试中各项指标的患病率，包括两步测试得分<1.3、站立测试中从40厘米高的座椅上单腿站立困难以及25题GLFS得分≥7分，结果分别为57.4%、40.6%和22.6%。接下来，我们调查了第二阶段运动综合症风险测试中各项指标的患病率，包括两步测试得分<1.1、站立测试中双腿从20厘米高的座椅上站立困难以及25题GLFS得分≥16，结果分别为21.1%、7.9%和10.6%。使用缓慢的 FTSST 时间或缓慢的步行速度作为客观因素，以及指数的存在或不存在作为独立因素的逻辑回归分析，在调整混杂因素后显示，阶段 1 和阶段 2 的所有三个指数均与不动显着且独立相关。最后，我们根据阶段 1 和阶段 2 中越来越多的指标阐明了不动的风险，并发现慢 FTSST 时间和慢步行速度的优势比呈指数增长。我们发现，这三个指数独立地预测了不动性，并且指数的积累呈指数级增加了不动性的风险。本文的在线版本 (doi:10.1007/s00776-015-0741-5) 包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
We aimed to clarify the association between new indices in a locomotive syndrome risk test and decline in mobility. In the third survey of the Research on Osteoarthritis/osteoporosis Against Disability (ROAD) study, data on the indices were obtained from 1575 subjects (513 men, 1062 women) of the 1721 participants in mountainous and coastal areas. As outcome measures for decline in mobility, we used the five-times-sit-to-stand test (FTSST) and walking speed with cutoff values of 12 s and 0.8 m/s, respectively. We first estimated the prevalence of the indices in locomotive syndrome risk test stage 1, including two-step test score <1.3, difficulty with one-leg standing from a 40-cm-high seat in the stand-up test, and 25-question GLFS score ≥7, which were found to be 57.4, 40.6, and 22.6 %, respectively. Next, we investigated the prevalence of the indices in locomotive syndrome risk test stage 2, including two-step test score <1.1, difficulty with standing from a 20-cm-high seat using both legs in the stand-up test, and 25-question GLFS score ≥16, which were found to be 21.1, 7.9, and 10.6 %, respectively. Logistic regression analysis using slow FTSST time or slow walking speed as the objective factor, and presence or absence of indices as the independent factor, after adjusting for confounders, showed all three indices in both stages 1 and 2 were significantly and independently associated with immobility. Finally, we clarified the risk of immobility according to an increasing number of indices in both stages 1 and 2 and found that the odds ratio for both slow FTSST time and slow walking speed increased exponentially. We found that the three indices independently predicted immobility and that accumulation of indices increased the risk of immobility exponentially. The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00776-015-0741-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.