Rittweger Jörn, Gollasch Maik, Dietzel Roswitha, Armbrecht Gabriele
Institute for Aerospace Medicine, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Cologne, Germany.
Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Digit Biomark. 2025 Apr 11;9(1):88-97. doi: 10.1159/000545395. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
The chair-rising test (CRT) is being widely used to assess lower body power. The test provides valuable information about functional capacity and other health outcomes. However, most centers use timing-based outcomes, which may compromise its suitability in younger people and fitter geriatric patients, and which may also introduce confounding effects of body height. We, therefore, aimed to compare the traditional use of timing-based outcome with digitally assessed measurements of neuromuscular power.
Data were collected from a longitudinal population-based study that examined changes in muscle and bone health. CRT and jumping mechanography were performed on a ground reaction force plate. In 346 people (age: 32-92 years), chair-rising rate (fCRT) was manually assessed, and peak chair-rising power (PCRT) and jumping power (PJMG) were computed. Statistical analyses targeted breakpoints in the relationships between fCRT, PCRT, and PJMG. Effects of age, body height, and sex were assessed with linear and partial regression analyses.
Breakpoints were found at (fCRT = 0.778 Hz, PJMG = 35.2 Watt/kg, < 0.001) and at (fCRT = 0.669 Hz, PCRT = 9.9 Watt/kg, < 0.001). Slow chair-risers, defined by fCRT <0.669 Hz, were older than fast chair-risers ( < 0.001), albeit with a largely overlapping age range (fast chair-risers: 32-90 years, slow chair-risers: 32-92 years). Body height was correlated with fCRT ( < 0.001) and PCRT ( = 0.009) but not with PJMG ( = 0.59).
Timing-based CRT does not unequivocally reflect neuromuscular power. Its association with chair-rising power holds only in people who take more than 75 s for 5 stand-ups. For jumping power, the cutoff is at 6.4 s. Slow and fast chair-risers cannot be easily discerned by age. Bias by body height can substantially obscure age effects in timing-based CRT assessments. We conclude that chair-rising power represents a more universally applicable biomarker and is less influenced by body height compared to timing-based chair-rising assessments.
椅子起立测试（CRT）被广泛用于评估下肢力量。该测试提供了有关功能能力和其他健康结果的有价值信息。然而，大多数中心使用基于时间的结果，这可能会损害其在年轻人和身体状况较好的老年患者中的适用性，并且还可能引入身高的混杂效应。因此，我们旨在比较基于时间的传统结果与神经肌肉力量的数字评估测量方法。
数据来自一项基于人群的纵向研究，该研究考察了肌肉和骨骼健康的变化。在地面反作用力板上进行了椅子起立测试和跳跃力学分析。对346人（年龄：32 - 92岁）手动评估椅子起立速率（fCRT），并计算椅子起立峰值功率（PCRT）和跳跃功率（PJMG）。统计分析针对fCRT、PCRT和PJMG之间关系的断点。通过线性和偏回归分析评估年龄、身高和性别的影响。
在（fCRT = 0.778 Hz，PJMG = 35.2瓦/千克，<0.001）和（fCRT = 0.669 Hz，PCRT = 9.9瓦/千克，<0.001）处发现断点。由fCRT <0.669 Hz定义的慢椅子起立者比快椅子起立者年龄更大（<0.001），尽管年龄范围有很大重叠（快椅子起立者：32 - 90岁，慢椅子起立者：32 - 92岁）。身高与fCRT（<0.001）和PCRT（= 0.009）相关，但与PJMG无关（= 0.59）。
基于时间的椅子起立测试并不能明确反映神经肌肉力量。它与椅子起立功率的关联仅在5次起立用时超过75秒的人群中成立。对于跳跃功率，临界值为6.4秒。不能轻易通过年龄区分慢和快椅子起立者。在基于时间的椅子起立测试评估中，身高偏差会显著掩盖年龄效应。我们得出结论，与基于时间的椅子起立评估相比，椅子起立功率代表了一种更普遍适用的生物标志物，且受身高影响较小。
