Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Calcif Tissue Int. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1007/s00223-019-00545-w. [Epub ahead of print]

Assessment of Muscle Function and Physical Performance in Daily Clinical Practice : A position paper endorsed by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

Author information

1
Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Avenue Hippocrate 13, CHU B23, 4000, Liège, Belgium.
2
WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculo-Skeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium.
3
Gérontopôle of Toulouse, University of Toulouse III, CHU Purpan, Toulouse, France.
4
Servicio de Geriatría, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain.
5
Center for Geriatric Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Agaplesion Bethanien Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
6
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
7
MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, England, UK.
8
NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
9
Prince Mutaib Chair for Biomarkers of Osteoporosis, Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia.
10
World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
11
Gerontology and Frailty in Ageing Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
12
Department of Geriatrics, Neurosciences and Orthopedics, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Rome, Milan, Italy.
13
Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Avenue Hippocrate 13, CHU B23, 4000, Liège, Belgium. olivier.bruyere@ulg.ac.be.
14
WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculo-Skeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium. olivier.bruyere@ulg.ac.be.
15
Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
16
Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
17
Geriatria, Accettazione Geriatrica e Centro di Ricerca per l'invecchiamento, IRCCS-INRCA, Ancona, Italy.
18
Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.
19
Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
20
Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
21
Department of Endocrinology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
22
CNR Neuroscience Institute, Aging Branch, Padua, Italy.
23
MRC and Arthritis Research UK Centre for Integrated Research in Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Sheffield, UK.
24
Geriatric Department, CHU Sart-Tilman, Bât B35, 4000, Liège, Belgium.
25
Department of Geriatrics, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
26
Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
27
Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
28
Centre Hospitalier du Valais Romand, Centre Valaisan de Pneumologie, Crans-Montana, Switzerland.
29
Service of Bone Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
30
Nutrition, Exercise Physiology and Sarcopenia Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, USA.

Abstract

It is well recognized that poor muscle function and poor physical performance are strong predictors of clinically relevant adverse events in older people. Given the large number of approaches to measure muscle function and physical performance, clinicians often struggle to choose a tool that is appropriate and validated for the population of older people they deal with. In this paper, an overview of different methods available and applicable in clinical settings is proposed. This paper is based on literature reviews performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face-to-face meetings were organized afterwards where the whole group could amend and discuss the recommendations further. Several characteristics should be considered when choosing a tool: (1) purpose of the assessment (intervention, screening, diagnosis); (2) patient characteristics (population, settings, functional ability, etc.); (3) psychometric properties of the tool (test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, etc.); (4) applicability of the tool in clinical settings (overall cost, time required for the examination, level of training, equipment, patient acceptance, etc.); (5) prognostic reliability for relevant clinical outcomes. Based on these criteria and the available evidence, the expert group advises the use of grip strength to measure muscle strength and the use of 4-m gait speed or the Short Physical Performance Battery test to measure physical performance in daily practice. The tools proposed are relevant for the assessment of muscle weakness and physical performance. Subjects with low values should receive additional diagnostic workups to achieve a full diagnosis of the underlying condition responsible (sarcopenia, frailty or other).

KEYWORDS:

Daily practice; Muscle function; Muscle strenght; Physical performance; Sarcopenia

PMID:
30972475
DOI:
10.1007/s00223-019-00545-w

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center