Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31719075›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Reliability, measurement error and minimum detectable change in mobility measures: a cohort study of community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and over in Ireland.

Orna A Donoghue, George M Savva, Axel Börsch-Supan, Rose Anne Kenny

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 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. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Functional muscle power in the lower extremity in adults with congenital heart disease.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Orna A DonoghueThe Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA), University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland odonogh@tcd.ie.
George M SavvaQuadram Institute Bioscience, Norwich, UK.
Axel Börsch-SupanMunich Center for the Economics of Aging, Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, Munchen, Germany.
Rose Anne KennyThe Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA), University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

Integrating the TILDA Health Assessments into the SHARE Policy BackgroundR21AG040387 · NIA · NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH · PI BOERSCH-SUPAN, AXEL H · 2011 to 2012
$252k
NIA NIH HHS R21 AG040387
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the effects of repeat assessments, rater and time of day on mobility measures and to estimate their variation between and within participants in a population-based sample of Irish adults aged ≥50 years.

designTest-retest study in a population representative sample.

settingAcademic health assessment centre of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA).

participants128 community-dwelling adults from the Survey for Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Ireland study who agreed to take part in the SHARE-Ireland/TILDA collaboration.

interventionsNot applicable. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants performed timed up-and-go (TUG), repeated chair stands (RCS) and walking speed tests administered by one of two raters. Repeat assessments were conducted 1-4 months later. Participants were randomised with respect to a change in time (morning, afternoon) and whether the rater was changed between assessments. Within and between-participant variance for each measure was estimated using mixed-effects models. Intraclass correlation (ICC), SE of measurement and minimum detectable change (MDC) were reported.

resultsAverage performance did not vary between baseline and repeat assessments in any test, except RCS. The rater significantly affected performance on all tests except one, but time of day did not. Reliability varied from ICC=0.66 (RCS) to ICC=0.88 (usual gait speed). MDC was 2.08 s for TUG, 4.52 s for RCS and ranged from 19.49 to 34.73 cm/s for walking speed tests. There was no evidence for lower reliability of gait parameters with increasing time between assessments.

conclusionsReliability varied for each test when measurements are obtained over 1-4 months with most variation due to rater effects. Usual and motor dual task gait speed demonstrated highest reliability.

Indexed as

Independent LivingAgedAge FactorsCohort StudiesFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansIrelandMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsTask Performance and AnalysisTime FactorsWalkingepidemiologylongitudinal changephysical performance testsrepeatability

Identifiers

PMID31719075
PMCPMC6858113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.