ArticleProgress in rehabilitation medicine2025
Characteristics of Systematic Errors in the Two-step Test for Assessing Locomotive Syndrome among Young and Older Adults.
Article in Progress in rehabilitation medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The two-step test is a key component of the locomotive syndrome risk test, but few studies have examined its systematic errors, particularly in young adults. We investigated errors in young and older adults and identified the threshold for measurement errors. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 95 university students and 40 older adults and was conducted between April 2023 and March 2025. Participants performed the two-step test twice within a 7-day interval. Bland-Altman analysis assessed fixed and proportional bias for the two-step test length (length) and value (length normalized to height), and minimal detectable change (MDC) and limit of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Results: In young adults, the two-step test length was 279.2 ± 24.4 cm (difference: 8.4 ± 12.3 cm) and the two-step test value was 1.70 ± 0.11 cm/height (difference: 0.05 ± 0.07 cm/height); in older adults, these respective results were 140.7 ± 34.3 cm (0.0 ± 13.7 cm) and 0.89 ± 0.21 cm/height (0.00 ± 0.09 cm/height). In young adults, fixed bias was identified for length and value, whereas no systematic errors were detected in older adults. LOA ranged from -11.5 to 28.2 cm for length and from -0.07 to 0.17 cm/height for value in young adults. The MDC in older adults was 26.9 cm for length and 0.17 cm/height for value. Conclusions: In young adults, the result for the two-step test tended to increase during retesting, requiring caution in interpreting intervention effects. An increase at retesting of more than 0.17 cm/height for the test value or 25-30 cm for test length may be a clinically useful indicator, exceeding the smallest detectable change for both young and older adults based on LOA and MDC.
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.