ArticleBMC geriatrics2020
İnter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the extended TUG test in elderly participants.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gait and Dual-Task Performance in Older Adults with Suspected Cognitive Impairment: Effects of an 8-Week Exercise Program.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Lower Limb Muscle Fatigue Alters Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters and Turning Difficulty Characteristics in Parkinson's Disease.Annals of rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Measuring physical performance in later life: reliability of protocol variations for common performance-based mobility tests.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Article
- Assessing mobility in primary brain tumor patients: A descriptive feasibility study using two established mobility tests.Neuro-oncology practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo analyse the reliability, variance and execution time of the Extended Timed Up and Go (Extended TUG) test in three age groups of elderly participants (G1: 55-64 years; G2: 65-74 years; G3: 75-85 years).
methodsAn analytical cross-sectional study of 114 recruited participants (63 women) of average age 70.17 (± 7.3) years was undertaken. Each participant performed the Extended TUG three consecutive times, with a rest break between tests of 120 s. Both the intragroup and intergroup reliability of the measurements in the Extended TUG were analysed.
resultsThe reliability of the Extended TUG test is excellent for the first and second decades but drops down to good for the third decade. Specifically, intragroup reliability ranged from 0.784 for G3 to 0.977 for G1 (G2 = 0.858). Intergroup reliability, compared with intragroup reliability, was slightly lower, ranging between 0.779 for G3 and 0.972 for G1 (G2 = 0.853).
conclusionThe reliability of the Extended TUG test progressively decreases with increasing age, being excellent for the younger age groups and good for the oldest age group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.