使用部分配备加速度计的 Brief-BESTest 来检测中年人的平衡能力衰退情况

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Guy Baranes, Roee Hayek, Itai Gutman, Silvi Frenkel-Toledo, Shmuel Springer
{"title":"使用部分配备加速度计的 Brief-BESTest 来检测中年人的平衡能力衰退情况","authors":"Guy Baranes,&nbsp;Roee Hayek,&nbsp;Itai Gutman,&nbsp;Silvi Frenkel-Toledo,&nbsp;Shmuel Springer","doi":"10.1007/s40520-024-02868-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Most standardized balance tests cannot detect subtle balance deterioration in middle age, or identify those at higher risk for accelerated balance decline due to a ceiling effect.</p><h3>Aims</h3><p>To determine whether the Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest), partially instrumented with accelerometry, can detect balance deterioration in middle age and identify individuals with poor balance.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We studied young (25.3 ± 2.3 years), early middle-aged (47.7 ± 2.6 years), and late middle-aged adults (60.6 ± 3.6 years), with 25 participants in each age group. Subjects wore an accelerometer on their lower back while performing the Brief-BESTest. Balance measurements included the Brief-BESTest total and sub-measures scores, and postural sway during the Brief-BESTest standing tasks, calculated by the 95% confidence ellipse trajectory of the center of mass (COM-95% ellipse).</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Compared to the two middle-aged groups, young adults had better total Brief-BESTest and sub-measures scores, apart from the Stability-in-Gait sub-measure, and less postural sway during the Sensory-Orientation sub-measure. The total Brief-BESTest scores as well as the Biomechanical-Constraints and Sensory-Orientation sub-measures differed also between early and late middle-aged adults. Both the Brief-BESTest total scores and the Sensory-Orientation postural sway values demonstrated increased variation with age, allowing to identify subjects with poor balance. A moderate negative correlation (<i>r</i> = -0.43) was found between the Brief-BESTest total score and the COM-95% ellipse size, and a moderate agreement (<i>k</i> = 0.56) in identifying subjects with poor performance in the early but not the late middle age group.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The Brief-BESTest test combined with accelerometry could be a suitable screening tool to identify middle-aged people with early balance deterioration and potentially identify those with poor balance and a possible higher risk for falls. Clinicians and policymakers can use our findings to implement balance assessment programs in patients &lt; 65 years, leading to preventive strategies before the risk increases.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7720,"journal":{"name":"Aging Clinical and Experimental Research","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40520-024-02868-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of the Brief-BESTest partially instrumented with accelerometry to detect balance deterioration in middle-age\",\"authors\":\"Guy Baranes,&nbsp;Roee Hayek,&nbsp;Itai Gutman,&nbsp;Silvi Frenkel-Toledo,&nbsp;Shmuel Springer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40520-024-02868-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Most standardized balance tests cannot detect subtle balance deterioration in middle age, or identify those at higher risk for accelerated balance decline due to a ceiling effect.</p><h3>Aims</h3><p>To determine whether the Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest), partially instrumented with accelerometry, can detect balance deterioration in middle age and identify individuals with poor balance.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We studied young (25.3 ± 2.3 years), early middle-aged (47.7 ± 2.6 years), and late middle-aged adults (60.6 ± 3.6 years), with 25 participants in each age group. Subjects wore an accelerometer on their lower back while performing the Brief-BESTest. Balance measurements included the Brief-BESTest total and sub-measures scores, and postural sway during the Brief-BESTest standing tasks, calculated by the 95% confidence ellipse trajectory of the center of mass (COM-95% ellipse).</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Compared to the two middle-aged groups, young adults had better total Brief-BESTest and sub-measures scores, apart from the Stability-in-Gait sub-measure, and less postural sway during the Sensory-Orientation sub-measure. The total Brief-BESTest scores as well as the Biomechanical-Constraints and Sensory-Orientation sub-measures differed also between early and late middle-aged adults. Both the Brief-BESTest total scores and the Sensory-Orientation postural sway values demonstrated increased variation with age, allowing to identify subjects with poor balance. A moderate negative correlation (<i>r</i> = -0.43) was found between the Brief-BESTest total score and the COM-95% ellipse size, and a moderate agreement (<i>k</i> = 0.56) in identifying subjects with poor performance in the early but not the late middle age group.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The Brief-BESTest test combined with accelerometry could be a suitable screening tool to identify middle-aged people with early balance deterioration and potentially identify those with poor balance and a possible higher risk for falls. Clinicians and policymakers can use our findings to implement balance assessment programs in patients &lt; 65 years, leading to preventive strategies before the risk increases.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aging Clinical and Experimental Research\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40520-024-02868-7.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aging Clinical and Experimental Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40520-024-02868-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aging Clinical and Experimental Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40520-024-02868-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景大多数标准化的平衡测试都无法检测出中年时期细微的平衡能力衰退,也无法识别出由于天花板效应而导致平衡能力加速衰退的高危人群。方法我们对年轻人(25.3 ± 2.3 岁)、中年人早期(47.7 ± 2.6 岁)和中年人晚期(60.6 ± 3.6 岁)进行了研究,每个年龄组有 25 名参与者。受试者在进行简易平衡测试时在腰部佩戴加速度计。结果与两个中年组相比,除步态稳定性子测量外,青壮年的Brief-BESTest总分和子测量得分更高,在感觉-定向子测量中的姿势摇摆更小。中年早期和中年晚期成年人的 Brief-BESTest 总分以及 "生物力学约束 "和 "感觉-定向 "子测量也存在差异。随着年龄的增长,Brief-BESTest 总分和 "感觉-方位 "姿势摇摆值的变化也越来越大,这有助于识别平衡能力差的受试者。简短-BESTest总分与COM-95%椭圆大小之间存在中等程度的负相关(r = -0.43),在识别中年早期(而非中年晚期)表现较差的受试者方面存在中等程度的一致性(k = 0.56)。临床医生和政策制定者可以利用我们的研究结果对65岁以上的患者实施平衡评估计划,从而在风险增加之前制定预防策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Use of the Brief-BESTest partially instrumented with accelerometry to detect balance deterioration in middle-age

Background

Most standardized balance tests cannot detect subtle balance deterioration in middle age, or identify those at higher risk for accelerated balance decline due to a ceiling effect.

Aims

To determine whether the Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest), partially instrumented with accelerometry, can detect balance deterioration in middle age and identify individuals with poor balance.

Methods

We studied young (25.3 ± 2.3 years), early middle-aged (47.7 ± 2.6 years), and late middle-aged adults (60.6 ± 3.6 years), with 25 participants in each age group. Subjects wore an accelerometer on their lower back while performing the Brief-BESTest. Balance measurements included the Brief-BESTest total and sub-measures scores, and postural sway during the Brief-BESTest standing tasks, calculated by the 95% confidence ellipse trajectory of the center of mass (COM-95% ellipse).

Results

Compared to the two middle-aged groups, young adults had better total Brief-BESTest and sub-measures scores, apart from the Stability-in-Gait sub-measure, and less postural sway during the Sensory-Orientation sub-measure. The total Brief-BESTest scores as well as the Biomechanical-Constraints and Sensory-Orientation sub-measures differed also between early and late middle-aged adults. Both the Brief-BESTest total scores and the Sensory-Orientation postural sway values demonstrated increased variation with age, allowing to identify subjects with poor balance. A moderate negative correlation (r = -0.43) was found between the Brief-BESTest total score and the COM-95% ellipse size, and a moderate agreement (k = 0.56) in identifying subjects with poor performance in the early but not the late middle age group.

Conclusions

The Brief-BESTest test combined with accelerometry could be a suitable screening tool to identify middle-aged people with early balance deterioration and potentially identify those with poor balance and a possible higher risk for falls. Clinicians and policymakers can use our findings to implement balance assessment programs in patients < 65 years, leading to preventive strategies before the risk increases.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
5.00%
发文量
283
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Aging clinical and experimental research offers a multidisciplinary forum on the progressing field of gerontology and geriatrics. The areas covered by the journal include: biogerontology, neurosciences, epidemiology, clinical gerontology and geriatric assessment, social, economical and behavioral gerontology. “Aging clinical and experimental research” appears bimonthly and publishes review articles, original papers and case reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信