Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37024827›Full record

ReviewBMC geriatrics2023

Towards a core-set of mobility measures in ageing research: The need to define mobility and its constructs.

Esmee M Reijnierse, Sven J G Geelen, Marike van der Schaaf, Bart Visser, Rob C I Wüst, Mirjam Pijnappels, Carel G M Meskers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC geriatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Qualitative assessment of mobility in older adults: a scoping review of process-oriented behavioural criteria.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Development and validation of the mobility in middle-age questionnaire.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

Esmee M ReijnierseDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sven J G GeelenAmsterdam Movement Sciences, Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marike van der SchaafAmsterdam Movement Sciences, Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bart VisserCentre of Expertise Urban Vitality, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Tafelbergweg 51, Amsterdam, 1105 BD, The Netherlands.
Rob C I WüstAmsterdam Movement Sciences, Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mirjam PijnappelsAmsterdam Movement Sciences, Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carel G M MeskersDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.meskers@amsterdamumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobility is a key determinant and outcome of healthy ageing but its definition, conceptual framework and underlying constructs within the physical domain may need clarification for data comparison and sharing in ageing research. This study aimed to (1) review definitions and conceptual frameworks of mobility, (2) explore agreement on the definition of mobility, conceptual frameworks, constructs and measures of mobility, and (3) define, classify and identify constructs.

methodsA three-step approach was adopted: a literature review and two rounds of expert questionnaires (n = 64, n = 31, respectively). Agreement on statements was assessed using a five-point Likert scale; the answer options 'strongly agree' or 'agree' were combined. The percentage of respondents was subsequently used to classify agreements for each statement as: strong (≥ 80%), moderate (≥ 70% and < 80%) and low (< 70%).

resultsA variety of definitions of mobility, conceptual frameworks and constructs were found in the literature and among respondents. Strong agreement was found on defining mobility as the ability to move, including the use of assistive devices. Multiple constructs and measures were identified, but low agreements and variability were found on definitions, classifications and identification of constructs. Strong agreements were found on defining physical capacity (what a person is maximally capable of, 'can do') and performance (what a person actually does in their daily life, 'do') as key constructs of mobility.

conclusionAgreements on definitions of mobility, physical capacity and performance were found, but constructs of mobility need to be further identified, defined and classified appropriately. Clear terminology and definitions are essential to facilitate communication and interpretation in operationalising the physical domain of mobility as a prerequisite for standardisation of mobility measures.

Indexed as

Physical ExaminationHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesMobility limitationPhysical capacityPhysical performance

Identifiers

PMID37024827
PMCPMC10080758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.