Home › Research › Treatments
Development and Validation of a Cutoff for the Chair Stand Test as a Screening for Mobility Impairment in the Context of the Integrated Care for Older People Program
Gonzalez-Bautista E, de Souto Barreto P, Salinas-Rodriguez A, Manrique-Espinoza B, Sourdet S, Rolland Y, Rodríguez-Mañas L, Andrieu S et al.. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2023-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background The 5-repetition chair stand test (CST) is increasingly being used to assess locomotion capacity in older adults. However, there is a lack of age-stratified cutoffs for adults aged ≥70 validated against a higher risk of functional loss. Methods We used 2 population-based studies (Study on global AGEing and adult health in Mexico [SAGE Mexico] and Toledo Study for Healthy Aging [TSHA]) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses to develop and cross-validate age-stratified chair stand cutoffs with activities of daily living (ADL) disability as the outcome. Then, we used data from an randomized controlled trial (RCT) (Multidomain Alzheimer Preventive Trial [MAPT]) and a frailty day-hospital for external validation with cross-sectional and longitudinal measures of ADL disability. The merged sample of SAGE Mexico and TSHA was n = 1 595; sample sizes for external validation were: MAPT n = 1 573 and Frailty day-hospital n = 2 434. The Cox models for incident disability in MAPT had a mean follow-up of 58.6 months. Results Cutoffs obtained were 14 second (ages 70-79) and 16 second (ages 80+). Those cutoffs identified older adults at higher odds of incident ADL disability odds ratio (OR) = 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06; 2.78) for ages 70-79 and odds ratio (OR) = 2.27 (95% CI 1.07; 4.80) in those aged 80+. Being a slow chair stander according to the cut points was associated with ADL disability in cross-sectional and longitudinal measures. Conclusions Fourteen- and 16-second cut points for the CST are suitable to identify people at higher risk of functional decline among older adults in Mexico and Toledo, Spain. Adjusting the cut point from 14 to 16 second generally improved the psychometric properties of the test. The validation of these cutoffs can facilitate the screening for limited mobility and the implementation of the Integrated Care for Older People program.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gonzalez-Bautista, E., de Souto Barreto, P., Salinas-Rodriguez, A., Manrique-Espinoza, B., Sourdet, S., Rolland, Y., et al. (2023). Development and Validation of a Cutoff for the Chair Stand Test as a Screening for Mobility Impairment in the Context of the Integrated Care for Older People Program. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glac055
Vancouver
Gonzalez-Bautista E, de Souto Barreto P, Salinas-Rodriguez A, Manrique-Espinoza B, Sourdet S, Rolland Y, et al. Development and Validation of a Cutoff for the Chair Stand Test as a Screening for Mobility Impairment in the Context of the Integrated Care for Older People Program. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2023. doi:10.1093/gerona/glac055. PMID: 35226732.
BibTeX
@article{gonzalezbautista2023-35226732,
author = {Gonzalez-Bautista, E. and de Souto Barreto, P. and Salinas-Rodriguez, A. and Manrique-Espinoza, B. and Sourdet, S. and Rolland, Y. and Rodríguez-Mañas, L. and Andrieu, S. and others},
title = {{Development and Validation of a Cutoff for the Chair Stand Test as a Screening for Mobility Impairment in the Context of the Integrated Care for Older People Program}},
journal = {The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1093/gerona/glac055},
pmid = {35226732},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glac055}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- However, there is a lack of age-stratified cutoffs for adults aged ≥70 validated against a higher risk of functional loss.
- Results Cutoffs obtained were 14 second (ages 70-79) and 16 second (ages 80+).
- Those cutoffs identified older adults at higher odds of incident ADL disability odds ratio (OR) = 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06; 2.78) for ages 70-79 and odds ratio (OR) = 2.27 (95% CI 1.07; 4.80) in those aged 80+.
- Being a slow chair stander according to the cut points was associated with ADL disability in cross-sectional and longitudinal measures.
- Conclusions Fourteen- and 16-second cut points for the CST are suitable to identify people at higher risk of functional decline among older adults in Mexico and Toledo, Spain.
Why it matters
This study developed age-stratified cutoffs for the 5-repetition chair stand test (14 seconds for ages 70-79 and 16 seconds for ages 80+) that identified older adults at higher odds of incident disability in daily living activities. It is a screening tool for mobility impairment, not a treatment or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 58/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 56 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 58 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | The Journals of Gerontology Series A: journal h-index 274 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | 2 / 7 | Cited 14 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 2.8 citations a year over 5 year(s) since 2023 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 1.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 1 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 11 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | Inserm: institution h-index 1,988 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 7 institution(s) in 3 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35226732) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 56 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 56 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 58 out of 100. |
| Total | 58 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 10 Oct 2026), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “examination”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “examination”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.