ArticleGeroScience2025
Reliability and validity of a full-body function Get-Up test in older adults.
Article in GeroScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identifying deficiencies in physical function in older adults is critical to evaluate important health outcomes like sarcopenia, but current protocols are expensive and require complex equipment. This study evaluates the reliability and validity of an inexpensive, simple new Get-Up test in older adults. It involves participants moving quickly from standing upright, to lying flat, then rising to a standing position unassisted. A total of 293 relatively healthy older adults without severe health conditions (e.g., cardiovascular, psychological, degenerative, or physical impairments) completed the Get-Up test twice for familiarization and twice for timed trials on two separate days alongside numerous validated clinical tests commonly used to assess strength, function, and fitness in older adults. ANOVA with post-hoc analysis and intraclass correlation (0.928 (95% CI [0.914, 0.940])) indicated strong reliability, with the second timed trial comparable to trials on a separate day. The Get-Up test was significantly (p <.0001) negatively correlated with all referenced measures of strength (Biodex peak torque, r = -.41, 1-repetition maximum, r = -.26, handgrip, r = -.38) and function (Short Physical Performance Battery, r = -.49, gait speed, r = -.39) and significantly (p <.0001) positively correlated with fitness (400-m walk, r =.70), which strongly predicted Get-Up test performance, suggesting good validity. Poor performance was associated with baseline sarcopenia prevalence (bottom tertile vs. top tertile: odds ratio 3.99 (95% CI 1.64-9.67)) and sarcopenia incidence after 1-year follow-up (hazard ratio 3.47 (1.10, 10.98)), suggesting potential to evaluate sarcopenia. This simple and safe Get-Up test requires minimal equipment, personnel, and expertise, yet it has good reliability and validity as a potential novel tool for full-body physical function in older adults that is associated with sarcopenia prevalence and incidence.
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.