ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Dementia-specific adaptations to physical performance tests of balance, mobility, and lower limb strength and function: a reliability study in people with dementia.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundValid and reliable physical performance tests are crucial for accurately assessing the physical performance of people with dementia (PwD) and for evaluating the effects of interventions. However, existing physical performance tests for PwD often show insufficient reliability. This study aims to investigate the reliability of physical performance tests of balance, mobility and lower limb strength and function that were specifically adapted for PwD.
methodsWe conducted a reliability study with test-retest design and a one-week gap between tests among PwD living in nursing homes. Adaptations were made to either the instruction and administration, or the scoring of the three physical performance tests as follows: The Frailty and Injuries: Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques (FICSIT) for balance (adaptations to administration and scoring), the Timed-Up and Go Test (TUG) and its five phases (standing up, walking, turning around, walking, sitting down) for mobility (adaptations to instruction, administration and scoring in terms of analysing the five phases separately, and the Sit-to-Stand test (STS) for lower limb strength and function (adaptations to instruction and administration). The tests were standardized in terms of cues used to administer and guide them. We assessed absolute reliability (Standard Error of Measurement; Coefficient of Variance, Minimal Detectable Change) and relative reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient; weighted Cohen's Kappa). The absolute and relative test-retest reliability of the PP tests was assessed.
resultsWe examined relative and absolute reliability values of PP tests in a sample of 26 PwD (mean age, 88 years; mean Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, 14). No statistically significant differences were found between baseline and retest. Relative reliability values ranged from 0.258 to 0.505 for balance (FICSIT), 0.011 to 0.860 for mobility (TUG), and 0.506 to 0.678 for lower limb strength and function (STS). Absolute reliability values as indicated by the coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 23.5 to 92.8.
conclusionsAdaptations regarding test administration and/ or scoring did not improve reliability values as compared to the original test versions. TUG test phases showed the highest reliability values for the gait phases. Future adaptations should focus on reducing the cognitive component of demand during physical performance tests. Assistive technologies such as augmented reality could improve test reliability by providing more consistent and controlled test environment.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00019205, retrospectively registered, registration date: 11 November 2019.
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.