Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36721962›Full record

SynthesisAge and ageing2023

Remote collection of physical performance measures for older people: a systematic review.

Philip A Heslop, Christopher Hurst, Avan A Sayer, Miles D Witham

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Philip A HeslopAGE Research Group, NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 5PL, UK.
Christopher HurstAGE Research Group, NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 5PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7239-6599
Avan A SayerAGE Research Group, NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 5PL, UK.
Miles D WithamAGE Research Group, NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 5PL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Remotely collected physical performance measures could improve inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research as well as enabling continuation of research in pandemic conditions. It is unclear whether remote collection is feasible and acceptable to older patients, or whether results are comparable to face-to-face measures. We conducted a systematic review according to a prespecified protocol. We included studies with mean participant age ≥ 60 years, with no language restriction. Studies examining the gait speed, Short Physical Performance Battery, distance walk tests, grip strength, Tinetti score, Berg balance test, sit-to-stand test and timed up and go were included. Reports of feasibility, acceptability, correlation between remote and face-to-face assessments and absolute differences between remote and face-to-face assessments were sought. Data were synthesised using Synthesis Without Meta-analysis methodology; 30 analyses from 17 publications were included. Study size ranged from 10 to 300 participants, with a mean age ranging from 61 to >80 years. Studies included a broad range of participants and conditions. Most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias. Only two studies undertook assessment of acceptability or feasibility, reporting good results. Correlation between face-to-face and remote measures was variable across studies, with no measure showing consistently good correlation. Only nine studies examined the accuracy of remote measures; in six studies, accuracy was rated as good (<5% mean difference between face-to-face and remote measures). There is a lack of robust evidence that remote collection of physical performance measures is acceptable to patients, feasible or provides comparable results to face-to-face measures.

Indexed as

Hand StrengthLanguageAgedAged, 80 and overHumansPandemicsPhysical Functional Performanceolder peoplephysical performanceremote outcomessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36721962
PMCPMC9889964

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.