The 5-Sit-to-stand test (5STS) is used for lower limb muscle power (MP) determination in field/clinical setting. From the time taken to perform five standing movements and three partially verified assumptions (vertical displacement, mean concentric time, and mean force), MP is estimated as the body’s vertical velocity x force. By comparison with a gold standard, laboratory approach (motion capture system and force plate), we aimed to: (1) verify the assumptions; (2) assess the accuracy of the field-estimated MP (MPfield); (3) develop and validate an optimized estimation (MPfield-opt). In 63 older adults (67 ± 6 years), we compared: (i) estimated and measured assumptions (2-WAY RM ANOVA), (ii) MPfield and MPfield-opt with the reference/laboratory method (MPlab) (2-WAY RM ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), Bland-Altman analysis). There was a significant difference between estimated and measured assumptions (p < 0.001). Following the implementation of the optimized assumptions, MPfield-opt (205.1 ± 55.3 W) was not significantly different from Mlab (199.5 ± 57.9 W), with a high correlation (r = 0.86, p < 0.001) and a non-significant bias (5.64 W, p = 0.537). Provided that corrected assumptions are used, 5STS field test is confirmed a valid time- and cost-effective field method for the monitoring of lower limbs MP, a valuable index of health status in aging

Estimating Muscle Power of the Lower Limbs through the 5-Sit-to-Stand Test: A Comparison of Field vs. Laboratory Method

Ferrari, Luca;Lucertini, Francesco;
2022

Abstract

The 5-Sit-to-stand test (5STS) is used for lower limb muscle power (MP) determination in field/clinical setting. From the time taken to perform five standing movements and three partially verified assumptions (vertical displacement, mean concentric time, and mean force), MP is estimated as the body’s vertical velocity x force. By comparison with a gold standard, laboratory approach (motion capture system and force plate), we aimed to: (1) verify the assumptions; (2) assess the accuracy of the field-estimated MP (MPfield); (3) develop and validate an optimized estimation (MPfield-opt). In 63 older adults (67 ± 6 years), we compared: (i) estimated and measured assumptions (2-WAY RM ANOVA), (ii) MPfield and MPfield-opt with the reference/laboratory method (MPlab) (2-WAY RM ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), Bland-Altman analysis). There was a significant difference between estimated and measured assumptions (p < 0.001). Following the implementation of the optimized assumptions, MPfield-opt (205.1 ± 55.3 W) was not significantly different from Mlab (199.5 ± 57.9 W), with a high correlation (r = 0.86, p < 0.001) and a non-significant bias (5.64 W, p = 0.537). Provided that corrected assumptions are used, 5STS field test is confirmed a valid time- and cost-effective field method for the monitoring of lower limbs MP, a valuable index of health status in aging
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11576/2710611
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact