Objectives Providing an overview of the clinimetric properties of the steep ramp test (SRT), a short-term maximal exercise test, to assess cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), describing its underlying physiological responses, and summarizing its applications in current clinical and research practice. Data Sources MEDLINE (through PubMed), CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PsychINFO, were searched for studies published up to July 2023, using keywords for SRT and CRF. Study Selection Eligible studies involved the SRT as research subject or measurement instrument and were available as full text article in English or Dutch. Data Extraction Two independent assessors performed data extraction. Data addressing clinimetric properties, physiological responses, and applications of the SRT were tabulated. Data Synthesis In total, 370 studies were found, of which 39 were included in this study. In several healthy and patient populations, correlation coefficients between the work rate at peak exercise (WRpeak) attained at the SRT and oxygen uptake at peak exercise (V̇O2peak) during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) ranged from 0.771 to 0.958 (criterion validity). Repeated measurements showed intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.908 to 0.996 for WRpeak attained with the first and second SRT (test-retest reliability). Physiological parameters, like heart rate and minute ventilation at peak exercise, indicated that the SRT puts a lower burden on the cardiopulmonary system compared to CPET. The SRT is mostly used to assess CRF, among others as part of preoperative risk assessment, and to personalize interval training intensity. Conclusions The SRT is a practical short-term maximal exercise test that is valid for CRF assessment, and to monitor changes in CRF over time, in various healthy and patient populations. Its clinimetric properties and potential applications make the SRT of interest for a widespread implementation of CRF assessment in clinical and research practice, and for personalizing training intensity and monitoring longitudinal changes in CRF.
Background: Over the years, a plethora of frailty assessment tools has been developed. These instruments can be basically grouped into two types of conceptualizations – unidimensional, based on the physical–biological dimension – and multidimensional, based on the connections among the physical, psychological, and social domains. At present, studies on the comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures are limited. Objective: The aims of this paper were: 1) to compare the prevalence of frailty obtained using a uni- and a multidimensional measure; 2) to analyze differences in the functional status among individuals captured as frail or robust by the two measures; and 3) to investigate relations between the two frailty measures and disability.
BACKGROUND: Mobility is a key determinant and outcome of healthy ageing but its definition, conceptual framework and underlying constructs within the physical domain may need clarification for data comparison and sharing in ageing research. This study aimed to (1) review definitions and conceptual frameworks of mobility, (2) explore agreement on the definition of mobility, conceptual frameworks, constructs and measures of mobility, and (3) define, classify and identify constructs.METHODS: A three-step approach was adopted: a literature review and two rounds of expert questionnaires (n = 64, n = 31, respectively). Agreement on statements was assessed using a five-point Likert scale; the answer options 'strongly agree' or 'agree' were combined. The percentage of respondents was subsequently used to classify agreements for each statement as: strong (≥ 80%), moderate (≥ 70% and < 80%) and low (< 70%).RESULTS: A variety of definitions of mobility, conceptual frameworks and constructs were found in the literature and among respondents. Strong agreement was found on defining mobility as the ability to move, including the use of assistive devices. Multiple constructs and measures were identified, but low agreements and variability were found on definitions, classifications and identification of constructs. Strong agreements were found on defining physical capacity (what a person is maximally capable of, 'can do') and performance (what a person actually does in their daily life, 'do') as key constructs of mobility.CONCLUSION: Agreements on definitions of mobility, physical capacity and performance were found, but constructs of mobility need to be further identified, defined and classified appropriately. Clear terminology and definitions are essential to facilitate communication and interpretation in operationalising the physical domain of mobility as a prerequisite for standardisation of mobility measures.
