ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2025
Low Relative Sit-to-Stand Power Is Associated With the Development of Adverse Health Outcomes: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study.
Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reference values for relative sit-to-stand power in Chinese middle-aged and older adults.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2026Article
- Can Changes in Sit-To-Stand Performance Throughout A 30-S Time Interval Be Used as A Marker of Performance Fatigability in Middle-Aged To Older Adults?Journal of sports science & medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRelative sit-to-stand (STS) power has emerged as a key biomarker of aging due to its strong association with adverse health outcomes such as frailty or disability. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the association between low baseline relative STS power with the development of adverse health outcomes.
methodsA total of 839 community-dwelling older adults (65-91 years; 42% men) from the Toledo Study for Healthy Aging were assessed at baseline and after 5 years of follow-up. Relative STS power was assessed using the 30-s STS test and Alcazar's equation. Adverse conditions considered encompassed frailty (evaluated using the frailty trait scale 5 [FTS5] or frailty phenotype [FP]), disability in basic (BADL; Barthel index) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL; Lawton and Brody scale), cognitive impairment (mini-mental state examination), depression (geriatric depression scale) and medication use.
resultsAt baseline, people with low relative STS power (461 participants) had significantly higher FTS5 (+5.9 points), FP (+0.56 criteria), disability in BADL (-0.1 points) and IADL (-0.7 points), cognitive impairment (-1.3 points) and medication use (+0.9 medications) than older adults with normal relative STS power (all p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant differences were observed at baseline in GDS (p > 0.05). Low baseline relative STS power was significantly associated with the incidence of frailty FTS5 (OR [95% CI] = 2.51 [1.26-5.03]; p = 0.009), disability in BADL (OR [95% CI] = 1.70 [1.13-2.56]; p = 0.011) and IADL (OR [95% CI] = 1.79 [1.06-3.02]; p = 0.030) and increased medication use (OR [95% CI] = 1.51 [1.10-2.07]; p = 0.011) during the follow-up. No association was found with the incidence of frailty by FP (OR [95% CI] = 1.71 [0.75-3.93]; p = 0.202), depression (OR [95% CI] = 1.29 [0.85-1.98]; p = 0.236) or cognitive impairment (OR [95% CI] = 1.38 [0.86-2.21]; p = 0.178).
conclusionParticipants with low relative STS power exhibited worse baseline and 5-year follow-up values in frailty, BADL and IADL disability, cognitive impairment and medication intake. Low relative STS power was also associated with a higher probability of future frailty, disability in BADL and IADL and increased medication use.
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.