In this study we measured the performance times on the Wheelchair Mobility Performance (WMP) test during different test conditions to see if the performance times changed when wheelchair settings were changed. The overall performance time on the WMP test increased when the tire pressure was reduced and also when extra mass was attached to the wheelchair. It can be concluded that the WMP test is sensitive to changes in wheelchair settings. It is recommended to use this field-based test in further research to investigate the effect of wheelchair settings on mobility performance time. Objective: The Wheelchair Mobility Performance (WMP) test is a reliable and valid measure to assess mobility performance in wheelchair basketball. The aim of this study was to examine the sensitivity to change of the WMP test by manipulating wheelchair configurations. Methods: Sixteen wheelchair basketball players performed the WMP test 3 times in their own wheelchair: (i) without adjustments (“control condition”); (ii) with 10 kg additional mass (“weighted condition”); and (iii) with 50% reduced tyre pressure (“tyre condition”). The outcome measure was time (s). If paired t-tests were significant (p < 0.05) and differences between conditions were larger than the standard error of measurement, the effect sizes (ES) were used to evaluate the sensitivity to change. ES values ≥0.2 were regarded as sensitive to change. Results: The overall performance times for the manipulations were significantly higher than the control condition, with mean differences of 4.40 s (weight – control, ES = 0.44) and 2.81 s (tyre – control, ES = 0.27). The overall performance time on the WMP test was judged as sensitive to change. For 8 of the 15 separate tasks on the WMP test, the tasks were judged as sensitive to change for at least one of the manipulations. Conclusion: The WMP test can detect change in mobility performance when wheelchair configurations are manipulated. https://www.medicaljournals.se/jrm/content/html/10.2340/16501977-2341
MULTIFILE
Rationale: Diagnosis of sarcopenia in older adults is essential for early treatment in clinical practice. Bio-electrical impedanceanalysis (BIA) may be a valid means to assess appendicular lean mass (ALM) in older adults, but limited evidence is available.Therefore, we aim to evaluate the validity of BIA to assess ALM in older adults.Methods: In 215 community dwelling older adults (age ≥ 55 years), ALM was measured by BIA (Tanita MC-780; 8-points) andcompared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, Hologic Discovery A) as reference. Validity for assessing absolute values ofALM was evaluated by: 1) bias (mean difference), 2) percentage of accurate predictions (within 5% of DXA values), 3) individualerror (root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute deviation), 4) limits of agreement (Bland-Altman analysis). For diagnosis oflow ALM, the lowest quintile of ALM by DXA was used (below 21.4 kg for males and 15.4 for females). Sensitivity and specificityof detecting low ALM by BIA were assessed.Results: Mean age of the subjects was 71.9 ± 6.4, with a BMI of 25.8 ± 4.2 kg/m2, and 70% were females. BIA slightlyunderestimated ALM compared to DXA with a mean bias of -0.6 ± 0.2 kg. The percentage accurate predictions was 54% withRMSE 1.6 kg and limits of agreements -3.0 – +1.8 kg. Sensitivity was 79%, indicating that 79% of subjects with low ALMaccording to DXA also had low ALM with the BIA. Specificity was 90%, indicating that 90% of subjects with ‘no low’ ALMaccording to DXA also had ‘no low’ ALM with the BIA.Conclusions: This comparison showed a poor validity of BIA to assess absolute values of ALM, but a reasonable sensitivity andspecificity to diagnose a low level of ALM in community-dwelling older adults in clinical practice.
Background: The diagnosis of sarcopenia is essential for early treatment of sarcopenia in older adults, for which assessment of appendicular lean mass (ALM) is needed. Multi-frequency bio-electrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) may be a valid assessment tool to assess ALM in older adults, but the evidences are limited. Therefore, we validated the BIA to diagnose low ALM in older adults.Methods: ALM was assessed by a standing-posture 8 electrode MF-BIA (Tanita MC-780) in 202 community-dwelling older adults (age ≥ 55 years), and compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, MA, United States; DXA). The validity for assessing the absolute values of ALM was evaluated by: (1) bias (mean difference), (2) percentage of accurate predictions (within 5% of DXA values), (3) the mean absolute error (MAE), and (4) limits of agreement (Bland-Altman analysis). The lowest quintile of ALM by DXA was used as proxy for low ALM (< 22.8 kg for men, < 16.1 kg for women). Sensitivity and specificity of diagnosing low ALM by BIA were assessed.Results: The mean age of the subjects was 72.1 ± 6.4 years, with a BMI of 25.4 ± 3.6 kg/m2, and 71% were women. BIA slightly underestimated ALM compared to DXA with a mean bias of -0.6 ± 1.2 kg. The percentage of accurate predictions was 54% with a MAE of 1.1 kg, and limits of agreement were -3.0 to + 1.8 kg. The sensitivity for ALM was 80%, indicating that 80% of subjects who were diagnosed as low ALM according to DXA were also diagnosed low ALM by BIA. The specificity was 90%, indicating that 90% of subjects who were diagnosed as normal ALM by DXA were also diagnosed as normal ALM by the BIA.Conclusion: This comparison showed a poor validity of MF-BIA to assess the absolute values of ALM, but a reasonable sensitivity and specificity to recognize the community-dwelling older adults with the lowest muscle mass.
