Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27450179›Full record

ArticleJournal of primary care & community health2017

Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test: Normative Reference Values for Ages 20 to 59 Years and Relationships With Physical and Mental Health Risk Factors.

Breelan M Kear, Thomas P Guck, Amy L McGaha

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of primary care & community health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07362004 (Validity and Reliability of an Immersive Virtual Reality Adaptation of the Timed Up and Go Test in Asymptomatic Young Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 127 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07362004 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Validity and Reliability of an Immersive Virtual Reality Adaptation of the Timed Up and Go Test in Asymptomatic Young Adults

TypeobservationalSponsorSelcuk UniversityRan2026 to 2026Enrolled60ConditionsFunctional Mobility, Virtual Reality-Based Functional AssessmentArmsClinical Assessments
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

127 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. The effect of a telehealth exercise intervention on balance in adults with Down syndrome.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2023
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

67 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Breelan M Kear1 Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA.
Thomas P Guck1 Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA.
Amy L McGaha1 Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA.

Funding

CUMC Community-Oriented Primary Care Research EndowmentS21MD001102 · NIMHD · CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY · PI ENARSON, CAM E · 2004 to 2006
$1.9M
NIMHD NIH HHS S21 MD001102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a reliable, cost-effective, safe, and time-efficient way to evaluate overall functional mobility. However, the TUG does not have normative reference values (NRV) for individuals younger than 60 years. The purpose of this study was to establish NRV for the TUG for individuals aged between 20 and 59 years and to examine the relationship between the TUG and demographic, physical, and mental health risk factors.

methodsTwo hundred participants, 50 per decade (ages 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59 years) were selected at their primary care visit, and timed as they performed the TUG by standing up out of a chair, walking 3 m, turning around, walking back to the chair, and sitting down. Information regarding the risk factors socioeconomic status, body mass index, an index of multimorbidities, perceptions of overall physical and mental health was obtained and used as predictors of TUG time independent of age.

resultsTUG times were significantly different among the decades ( F = 6.579, P = .001) with slower times occurring with the 50-year-old decade compared with the 20s ( P = .001), 30s ( P = .001), and 40s ( P = .020). Slower TUG times were associated with lower SES, higher body mass index, more medical comorbidities, and worse perceived physical and mental health. Regression results indicated that perceived physical and mental health accounted for unique variance in the prediction of TUG time beyond age, gender, and socioeconomic status.

conclusionsThis study provided TUG NRV for adults in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. The TUG may have utility for primary care providers as they assess and monitor physical activity in younger adults, especially those with physical and mental health risk factors.

Indexed as

normative reference valuesphysical activityprimary careTUG test

Identifiers

PMID27450179
PMCPMC5932649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.