144
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Objectively measured physical capability levels and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article
      , , , on behalf of the FALCon and HALCyon study teams
      BMJ : British Medical Journal
      BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To do a quantitative systematic review, including published and unpublished data, examining the associations between individual objective measures of physical capability (grip strength, walking speed, chair rising, and standing balance times) and mortality in community dwelling populations.

          Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Data sources Relevant studies published by May 2009 identified through literature searches using Embase (from 1980) and Medline (from 1950) and manual searching of reference lists; unpublished results were obtained from study investigators.

          Study selection Eligible observational studies were those done in community dwelling people of any age that examined the association of at least one of the specified measures of physical capability (grip strength, walking speed, chair rises, or standing balance) with mortality.

          Data synthesis Effect estimates obtained were pooled by using random effects meta-analysis models with heterogeneity between studies investigated.

          Results Although heterogeneity was detected, consistent evidence was found of associations between all four measures of physical capability and mortality; those people who performed less well in these tests were found to be at higher risk of all cause mortality. For example, the summary hazard ratio for mortality comparing the weakest with the strongest quarter of grip strength (14 studies, 53 476 participants) was 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.45 to 1.93) after adjustment for age, sex, and body size (I 2=84.0%, 95% confidence interval 74% to 90%; P from Q statistic <0.001). The summary hazard ratio for mortality comparing the slowest with the fastest quarter of walking speed (five studies, 14 692 participants) was 2.87 (2.22 to 3.72) (I 2=25.2%, 0% to 70%; P=0.25) after similar adjustments. Whereas studies of the associations of walking speed, chair rising, and standing balance with mortality have only been done in older populations (average age over 70 years), the association of grip strength with mortality was also found in younger populations (five studies had an average age under 60 years).

          Conclusions Objective measures of physical capability are predictors of all cause mortality in older community dwelling populations. Such measures may therefore provide useful tools for identifying older people at higher risk of death.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Frailty: an emerging research and clinical paradigm--issues and controversies.

          Clinicians and researchers have shown increasing interest in frailty. Yet, there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the concept and its definition. In this article, we present perspectives on key issues and controversies discussed by scientists from 13 different countries, representing a diverse range of disciplines, at the 2006 Second International Working Meeting on Frailty and Aging. The following fundamental questions are discussed: What is the distinction, if any, between frailty and aging? What is its relationship with chronic disease? Is frailty a syndrome or a series of age-related impairments that predict adverse outcomes? What are the critical domains in its operational definition? Is frailty a useful concept? The implications of different models and approaches are examined. Although consensus has yet to be attained, work accomplished to date has opened exciting new horizons. The article concludes with suggested directions for future research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods.

            Exploring the possible reasons for heterogeneity between studies is an important aspect of conducting a meta-analysis. This paper compares a number of methods which can be used to investigate whether a particular covariate, with a value defined for each study in the meta-analysis, explains any heterogeneity. The main example is from a meta-analysis of randomized trials of serum cholesterol reduction, in which the log-odds ratio for coronary events is related to the average extent of cholesterol reduction achieved in each trial. Different forms of weighted normal errors regression and random effects logistic regression are compared. These analyses quantify the extent to which heterogeneity is explained, as well as the effect of cholesterol reduction on the risk of coronary events. In a second example, the relationship between treatment effect estimates and their precision is examined, in order to assess the evidence for publication bias. We conclude that methods which allow for an additive component of residual heterogeneity should be used. In weighted regression, a restricted maximum likelihood estimator is appropriate, although a number of other estimators are also available. Methods which use the original form of the data explicitly, for example the binomial model for observed proportions rather than assuming normality of the log-odds ratios, are now computationally feasible. Although such methods are preferable in principle, they often give similar results in practice. Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Hand-grip dynamometry predicts future outcomes in aging adults.

              One use of clinical measures is the prediction of future outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the literature addressing the value of grip strength as a predictor of important outcomes. Relevant literature was located using 4 bibliographic databases, searching article reference lists, and perusing personal files. Forty-five relevant research articles were found. The research involved both healthy subjects and patients; it tended to focus on middle-aged and older adults. The primary outcome addressed was mortality/survival (24 articles), but disability (9 articles), complications and/or increased length of stay (12 articles), and other outcomes were also examined. Low grip strength was shown consistently to be associated with a greater likelihood of premature mortality, the development of disability, and an increased risk of complications or prolonged length of stay after hospitalization or surgery. Given its predictive validity and simplicity, dynamometrically measured grip strength should be considered as a vital sign useful for screening middle-aged and older adults.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: MRC career development fellow
                Role: professor of life course epidemiology and MRC unit director
                Role: MRC programme leader
                Journal
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1468-5833
                2010
                2010
                09 September 2010
                : 341
                : c4467
                Affiliations
                [1 ]MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing and Division of Population Health, University College London, London WC1B 5JU
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: R Cooper  r.cooper@ 123456nshd.mrc.ac.uk
                Article
                coor757302
                10.1136/bmj.c4467
                2938886
                20829298
                a75906f2-a584-4d18-bf15-1e2fbec2d8e7
                © Cooper et al 2010

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 16 June 2010
                Categories
                Research
                1600
                Epidemiologic Studies
                Cleveland Clinic CME
                Internet

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article