Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1057
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3175
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To summarize the available literature investigating the reliability and validity of the instrumented timed up and go (iTUG) in typical adults and elderly.
Data Sources: Data were collected from PubMed, Web of Science and hand searching up until July 15, 2024.
Study Selection: English-language studies investigating the reliability and validity for the 3-meter version of the iTUG in typical adults and elderly were included. Eligibility was blindly reviewed by two reviewers.
Data Extraction: Data on demographics, settings, reliability and validity of the iTUG were independently extracted by two reviewers. The methodological quality was blindly assessed by two reviewers using the COSMIN tools, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated by the modified GRADE approach.
Data Synthesis: 19 studies were included investigating 1729 participants, of which 334 typical adults and 1395 typical elderly. For intra-rater reliability (n = 1 study), ICC ranged from 0.39 (CI 95%, 0.30 to 0.50) to 0.97 (CI 95%, 0.95 to 0.98), and test-retest reliability (n = 2 studies) from 0.27 (CI 95%, -0.47 to 0.63) to 0.89 (CI 95%, 0.78 to 0.95), with inter-rater reliability (n = 1 study) generally sufficient, from 0.929 to 0.99 (CI not reported). One study on criterion validity showed sufficient agreement (ICC > 0.7) with the gold standard for most outcome measures, except for three outcome measures measuring time of turn. Moreover, 12 studies used iTUG to predict cognitive decline (AUC = 0.80), maximal mobility performance (R = 0.278), physical function (AUC up to 0.75), or falls (AUC up to 0.853 (CI 95%, 0.759 to 0.948)).
Conclusions: iTUG can be a reliable and valid tool for assessing mobility in adults and elderly. However, complexity and non-standardization of outcome measures reduces the reliability and validity of iTUG, which needs to be addressed in future research.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2025.03.001 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!