ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2024
Temporal validation of a clinical prediction rule for distinguishing locomotive syndromes in community-dwelling older adults: A cross-sectional study from the DETECt-L study.
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Locomotive Syndrome Through Instrumented Five-Time Sit-to-Stand Test and Machine Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Clinical prediction rules are used to discriminate patients with locomotive syndrome and may enable early detection. This study aimed to validate the clinical predictive rules for locomotive syndrome in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: We assessed the clinical prediction rules for locomotive syndrome in a cross-sectional setting. The age, sex, and body mass index of participants were recorded. Five physical function tests-grip strength, single-leg standing time, timed up-and-go test, and preferred and maximum walking speeds-were measured as predictive factors. Three previously developed clinical prediction models for determining the severity of locomotive syndrome were assessed using a decision tree analysis. To assess validity, the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and post-test probability of the clinical prediction rules were calculated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for each model. Results: Overall, 280 older adults were included (240 women; mean age, 74.8 ± 5.2 years), and 232 (82.9%), 68 (24.3%), and 28 (10.0%) participants had locomotive syndrome stages ≥ 1, ≥ 2, and = 3, respectively. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves were 0.701, 0.709, and 0.603, in models 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The accuracies of models 1 and 2 were moderate. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the models are reliable for community-dwelling older adults.
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.