12 These facts notwithstanding, use of the TUG to characterize patient status requires the availability of normative reference values.
1,3–5 The TUG has also been shown to have validity by virtue of its correlation with measures such as the Berg Balance Scale, 1,6 gait speed/time, 1,7,8 stair climbing, 9 and functional indexes 1 and by its ability to discriminate between patients on the basis of residential status, 10 falls, 11 and mortality. 2 The procedure Podsiadlo and Richardson described for the TUG required documenting the time in seconds that subjects required to: “rise from a standard arm chair, walk to a line on the floor 3 meters away, turn, return, and sit down again.” They and others have reported that the TUG can be performed reliably. The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test was introduced in 1991 by Podsiadlo and Richardson 1 as a modification of the Get-Up and Go Test of Mathias et al. Patients whose performance exceeds the upper limit of reported confidence intervals can be considered to have worse than average performance. The reference values presented, though obtained from studies with clear differences, provide a standard to which patient performance can be compared. Although the data contributing to this mean were homogeneous, data for individuals who could be categorized by age were more homogeneous. The mean (95% confidence interval) TUG time for individuals at least 60 years of age was 9.4 (8.9–9.9) seconds. Twenty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis. Study specifics and data were consolidated and examined for homogeneity. Studies reporting TUG times for apparently healthy elders were identified through the on-line search of bibliographic databases.
This meta-analysis provided such values by consolidating data from multiple studies. The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is widely employed in the examination of elders, but definitive normative reference values are lacking.
0 kommentar(er)
