Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42231930›Full record

ArticleClinical interventions in aging2026

Enhancing the Short Physical Performance Battery: Proposing Norm Values for the 4-Meter Walking Test for Multimorbid Older Adults.

Berit K Labott, Vera Belkin, Bettina Wollesen, Claudia Voelcker-Rehage

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Berit K Labott *Department of Neuromotor Behavior and Exercise, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3686-9782
Vera Belkin *Department of Neuromotor Behavior and Exercise, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-8206-388X
Bettina WollesenInstitute of Movement Therapy and Movement-Oriented Prevention and Rehabilitation, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1082-9141
Claudia Voelcker-RehageDepartment of Neuromotor Behavior and Exercise, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5398-4099

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) is a common tool for examining lower extremity physical functioning and respective intervention effects in older adults. It is primarily used in community-dwelling older adults, but also in multimorbid populations such as nursing home residents. However, previous literature reported floor effects (receiving the lowest score) in this vulnerable population, particularly for the scoring of the 4-meter walking subtest. Aim: This study aimed to propose norm values and a scoring system addressing floor effects, to compare sensitivity to performance changes between the original and revised systems, and to externally validate the revised scoring. Methods: Data from three randomized controlled trials (PROCARE (n=399, 84.0±7.8 years, 77% female), PROfit (n=97, 82.4±9.8 years, 72% female), and PROGRESS (n=97, 84.6±7.7 years, 75% female)) were re-analyzed. SPPB was administered at baseline and post-intervention. Quartiles for time to complete the 4-meter walking test at baseline of the PROCARE dataset were analyzed, and norm values and a corresponding scoring system (0-4 points) were proposed. Floor effects were analyzed by comparing the number of participants in each scoring category. Sensitivity of the new scoring was evaluated by comparing means and standard deviations of time for completion at baseline and post-interventions. External validation was done using the PROfit and PROGRESS datasets. Results: Based on the adjusted scoring system, a completion time faster than 5.65 seconds (old: 4.82 seconds) corresponded to the highest score (4 points), and a time exceeding 10.80 seconds (old: 8.70 seconds) to the lowest score (1 point). The proposed scoring system reduced the floor effect from 36% to 21%, and analysis of sensitivity revealed a better fit with time to completion. External validation indicated that the proposed scoring categories appropriately reflected participants' functional and cognitive characteristics. Conclusion: The new scoring differentiated walking performance in a multimorbid sample, particularly within the group of low performers and better displayed changes in performance. Thus, it can contribute to detecting changes due to physiological deterioration, limited mobility, and use of walking aids which otherwise may be missed in this vulnerable population.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentPhysical Functional PerformanceWalkingWalk TestAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleReference Valuesgeriatric assessmentlong-term carenursing home residentsphysical functional performancewalking speed

Identifiers

PMID42231930
PMCPMC13225015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.