Evaluating the Agreement and Associations with Physical Function Between Equation- and Linear Position Transducer-Estimated Sit-to-Stand Muscle Power in Aging Adults

TL;DR

This study compares two methods for estimating muscle power during sit-to-stand tests in older adults and finds that one method better predicts physical function.

Contribution

The study reveals limited agreement between equation- and transducer-based sit-to-stand power estimates and identifies one method as a stronger predictor of physical function.

Findings

Equation-based STS power showed moderate agreement with transducer-based estimates (ICC = 0.69).

Equation-based STS power was more strongly associated with physical function outcomes like gait speed and walk test performance.

Linear position transducer estimates were less consistently linked to physical function measures compared to the equation method.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Muscle power, estimated from the sit-to-stand (STS) test, is an important indicator of physical function (PF) in aging adults. Therefore, its assessment may be implemented into future clinical practice. The agreement between different STS power assessments is unknown, and the associations between methods and PF outcomes have not been compared. Methods: A total of 49 aging adults (mean age = 60.9 ± 10.9; 67% female) participated in this cross-sectional study. STS power from a validated equation (EQ) and a linear position transducer (LPT) were estimated. Handgrip strength (HGS), timed up-and-go (TUG), usual gait speed (UGS), fast gait speed (FGS), the 400-m walk test (400MWT), and self-reported total, basic lower-body, and advanced lower-body PF were assessed. The agreement of STS power methods was assessed with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and a Bland–Altman plot. Multiple linear regression evaluated the associations between STS power and PF outcomes. Results: EQ and LPT STS power demonstrated only moderate agreement (ICC = 0.69). EQ STS power was independently associated with TUG (β = −0.45), UGS (β = 0.37), FGS (β = 0.48), 400MWT (β = −0.55), self-reported total (β = 0.30), basic lower-body (β = 0.30), and advanced lower-body PF (β = 0.30), but not HGS (β = 0.14). LPT STS power was independently associated with HGS (β = 0.44), FGS (β = 0.40), 400MWT (β = −0.51), self-reported total (β = 0.31), basic lower-body (β = 0.29), and advanced lower-body PF (β = 0.32), but neither TUG (β = −0.26) nor UGS (β = 0.28). Conclusions: EQ and LPT STS power demonstrate limited agreement, and EQ STS power may be a superior indicator of PF in aging adults. Future research should examine the feasibility of implementing STS power tests in clinical settings to screen and refer patients with low muscle power to effective therapeutic interventions.

Figures