PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
The gait speed test is one of the most widely used mobility assessments for older adults. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate and compare the measurement properties of the usual and fast gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults.
Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Peer-reviewed articles evaluating the gait speed test\'s measurement properties or interpretability in community-dwelling older adults were included. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments guidelines were followed for data synthesis and quality assessment.
Ninety-five articles met our inclusion criteria, with 79 evaluating a measurement property and 16 reporting on interpretability. There was sufficient reliability for both tests, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) generally ranging from 0.72 to 0.98, but overall quality of evidence was low. For convergent/discriminant validity, an overall sufficient rating with moderate quality of evidence was found for both tests. Concurrent validity of the usual gait speed test was sufficient (ICCs = 0.79-0.93 with longer distances) with moderate quality of evidence; however, there were insufficient results for the fast gait speed test (e.g. low agreement with longer distances) supported by high-quality studies. Responsiveness was only evaluated in three articles, with low quality of evidence.
Findings from this review demonstrated evidence in support of the reliability and validity of the usual and fast gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults. However, future validation studies should employ rigorous methodology and evaluate the tests\' responsiveness.
Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Peer-reviewed articles evaluating the gait speed test\'s measurement properties or interpretability in community-dwelling older adults were included. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments guidelines were followed for data synthesis and quality assessment.
Ninety-five articles met our inclusion criteria, with 79 evaluating a measurement property and 16 reporting on interpretability. There was sufficient reliability for both tests, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) generally ranging from 0.72 to 0.98, but overall quality of evidence was low. For convergent/discriminant validity, an overall sufficient rating with moderate quality of evidence was found for both tests. Concurrent validity of the usual gait speed test was sufficient (ICCs = 0.79-0.93 with longer distances) with moderate quality of evidence; however, there were insufficient results for the fast gait speed test (e.g. low agreement with longer distances) supported by high-quality studies. Responsiveness was only evaluated in three articles, with low quality of evidence.
Findings from this review demonstrated evidence in support of the reliability and validity of the usual and fast gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults. However, future validation studies should employ rigorous methodology and evaluate the tests\' responsiveness.
摘要：
目的：步态速度测试是最广泛使用的老年人行动能力评估之一。我们进行了系统的审查，以评估和比较社区居住的老年人的常规和快速步态测试的测量特性。
方法：搜索了三个数据库：MEDLINE，EMBASE和CINAHL。包括同行评审的文章，这些文章评估了步态速度测试的测量特性或社区居住的老年人的可解释性。数据综合和质量评估遵循基于共识的健康测量仪器选择指南标准。
结果：95篇文章符合我们的入选标准，79人评估测量属性，16人报告可解释性。这两种测试都有足够的可靠性，类内相关系数（ICC）通常在0.72至0.98之间，但总体证据质量较低。对于收敛/判别效度，两项测试的总体评级都足够,证据质量中等.通常的步态速度测试的同时有效性是足够的（在较长距离的情况下，ICC=0.79-0.93），证据质量适中；但是，高质量研究支持的快速步态速度测试结果不足(例如,与较长距离的一致性较低).仅在三篇文章中评估了响应性，证据质量低。
结论：这篇综述的研究结果表明，在社区居住的老年人中，常规和快速步态测试的可靠性和有效性得到了支持。然而,未来的验证研究应采用严格的方法并评估测试响应性。
方法：搜索了三个数据库：MEDLINE，EMBASE和CINAHL。包括同行评审的文章，这些文章评估了步态速度测试的测量特性或社区居住的老年人的可解释性。数据综合和质量评估遵循基于共识的健康测量仪器选择指南标准。
结果：95篇文章符合我们的入选标准，79人评估测量属性，16人报告可解释性。这两种测试都有足够的可靠性，类内相关系数（ICC）通常在0.72至0.98之间，但总体证据质量较低。对于收敛/判别效度，两项测试的总体评级都足够,证据质量中等.通常的步态速度测试的同时有效性是足够的（在较长距离的情况下，ICC=0.79-0.93），证据质量适中；但是，高质量研究支持的快速步态速度测试结果不足(例如,与较长距离的一致性较低).仅在三篇文章中评估了响应性，证据质量低。
结论：这篇综述的研究结果表明，在社区居住的老年人中，常规和快速步态测试的可靠性和有效性得到了支持。然而,未来的验证研究应采用严格的方法并评估测试响应性。
