Department of Biomedical Science and Technology, College of Medicine, East-West Medical Research Institute, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019 Mar-Apr;81:215-221. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2018.12.009. Epub 2018 Dec 24.
This study aimed to compare 4-m usual gait speed obtained with different protocols and to determine the prevalence of slowness using different diagnostic criteria in a large cohort of community-dwelling older adults.
A total of 1177 non-disabled community-dwelling older adults aged 70-84 years were assessed for 4-m usual gait speed using four different testing protocols: (1) automatic timer (ultrasonic sensor), dynamic start; (2) manual timer (stopwatch), dynamic start; (3) automatic timer, static start; and (4) manual timer, static start. To assess agreement between usual gait speed and the testing protocols, linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses were performed.
There was systematic bias (i.e., difference between automatic timer and manual timer methods), with underestimation of usual gait speed (bias 0.0695 m/s for dynamic start; bias 0.0702 m/s for static start) by the manual timer. There was systematic bias in start conditions, with underestimation of usual gait speed with a static start using both timer methods, compared with that in dynamic start assessment (P < 0.001). The prevalence of slowness ranged from 2.3 to 4.7% in men and 5.9-11.1% in women for <0.80 m/s, and from 17.1 to 30.5% in men and 26.3-45.9% in women for <1.00 m/s.
The findings of this study indicated that 4-m usual gait speed measured under different testing protocols was able to determine different prevalence rates of slowness among non-disabled community-dwelling older adults. An automatic timer may be useful for measuring gait speed changes in individuals likely to have faster gait speed in community-based research settings.
本研究旨在比较使用不同方案测量的 4 米常速步行速度，并确定使用不同诊断标准在大型社区居住的老年人中出现速度缓慢的比例。
共评估了 1177 名 70-84 岁的非残疾社区居住的老年人的 4 米常速步行速度，使用了四种不同的测试方案：（1）自动计时器（超声波传感器），动态启动；（2）手动计时器（秒表），动态启动；（3）自动计时器，静态启动；和（4）手动计时器，静态启动。为了评估常速步行速度与测试方案之间的一致性，进行了线性回归和 Bland-Altman 分析。
手动计时器存在系统偏差（即，自动计时器和手动计时器方法之间的差异），低估了常速步行速度（动态启动时的偏差为 0.0695m/s；静态启动时的偏差为 0.0702m/s）。启动条件存在系统偏差，与动态启动评估相比，使用两种计时器方法进行静态启动时，常速步行速度被低估（P<0.001）。男性中，<0.80m/s 的速度缓慢比例为 2.3%-4.7%，女性中为 5.9%-11.1%；男性中，<1.00m/s 的速度缓慢比例为 17.1%-30.5%，女性中为 26.3%-45.9%。
本研究结果表明，使用不同测试方案测量的 4 米常速步行速度能够确定非残疾社区居住的老年人中不同速度缓慢的比例。在社区为基础的研究环境中，自动计时器可能对测量步态速度变化很有用，因为这些人可能具有更快的步态速度。
