ArticleJournal of the American Medical Directors Association2025
Short Physical Performance Battery or Chair Stand: Which Better Predicts Disability Among High-Functioning Older Adults?
Article in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of bodyweight interval training on frailty status in older adults: a randomized controlled trial.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Can Difficulty Standing from a Chair Signal Early Risk of Chronic Illness? Insights from a Multi-Wave European Cohort.Calcified tissue international · 2026Article
- The impact of sleep duration, depressive symptoms, and cognitive function on daily activity among Chinese older adults: a serial multiple mediation model.Journal of global health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Chair Stand Test (CST) in terms of their ability to identify the risk of incident disability in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and basic activities of daily living (BADL) over an 8-year follow-up among high-functioning older adults.
designLongitudinal study. SETTING AND
participantsA sample of 2386 participants from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) who were free of IADL/BADL disability and had a gait speed greater than 0.8 m/s at baseline.
methodsReceiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the accuracy of the SPPB and CST to identify the risk of incident IADL/BADL disability. Subsequently, the trajectories of incident IADL/BADL disability were analyzed according to the SPPB and CST cutoff points using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics.
resultsPerformance in the SPPB ≤11 points and CST ≥11.5 seconds more accurately identified the risk of incident IADL/BADL disability than SPPB ≤10 points and CST >15 seconds, which are the cutoff points most commonly recommended in the literature to date. Finally, the trajectories of incident IADL/BADL disability were similar for SPPB ≤11 points and CST ≥11.5 seconds. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: SPPB ≤11 points and CST ≥11.5 seconds more accurately identified the risk of incident IADL/BADL disability than previously recommended cutoff points. As both instruments were similar in predicting trajectories of incident disability, the CST may represent a more practical choice for clinical screening, given its simplicity and shorter administration time.
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.