ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2025
Validity and reliability of assessing strength and balance improvements by videoconference in pre-frail and frail older adults.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessing older adults' physical function via videoconferencing technology is acceptable and feasible, enabling researchers and practitioners to monitor mobility remotely. However, validity of remote assessment in pre-frail and frail older adults, and its ability to detect change with intervention, has yet to be established.
aimTo establish the validity of remote physical function assessment in pre-frail and frail older adults compared to in-person assessment, and its reliability in detecting improvements in physical function during a 12-week exercise training intervention.
methodsParticipants aged ≥ 65 years identified as pre-frail or frail based on in-person Short Physical Performance Battery scores ≤ 8 completed remote and in-person assessment of the 5x sit-to-stand, 60-second sit-to-stand, and single leg standing balance four times over 12-weeks (n = 49 at baseline, 40 at follow-up), with one group improving physical function with homebased exercise. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Bland Altman plots were used to determine agreement between assessment settings and consistency across the range of observed scores respectively in both Exercise and Control groups over time.
resultsRemote assessment of sit-to-stand tests had good-to-excellent agreement with in-person assessment, and balance tests had moderate-to-good agreement. In the Exercise group, absolute bias in sit-to-stand tests was observed in both remote and in-person assessments at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, though this was not statistically different to the Control group. DISCUSSION: Remotely assessing physical function in pre-frail and frail older adults is promising when compared to in-person assessments; however, there may be a bias towards better test performance over time when assessed remotely compared to in-person.
conclusionsMonitoring change in physical function in pre-frail and frail older adults using remote assessment is useful but should consider potential bias in measurement outcomes. Larger and more specific studies are needed to conclusively demonstrate the validity of remote assessment compared to in-person assessment when dealing with pre-frail and frail older people.
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.