首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience >Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome: Could It Be Defined Through Increased Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test Time Rather Than Slow Walking Speed?
【2h】

Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome: Could It Be Defined Through Increased Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test Time Rather Than Slow Walking Speed?

机译:运动性认知风险综合症:能否通过增加五倍的站姿测试时间(而不是缓慢的行走速度)来定义?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

>Background: Slow walking speed, time to perform the five-times-sit-to-stand (FTSS) test and motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR; defined as slow gait speed combined with subjective cognitive complaint) have been separately used to screen older individuals at risk of cognitive decline. This study seeks to (1) compare the characteristics of older individuals with MCR, as defined through slow walking speed and/or increased FTSS time; and (2) examine the relationship between MCR and its motor components as well as amnestic (a-MCI) and non-amnestic (na-MCI) Mild Cognitive Impairment.>Methods: A total of 633, individuals free of dementia, were selected from the cross-sectional “Gait and Alzheimer Interactions Tracking” study. Slow gait speed and increased FTSS time were used as criteria for the definition of MCR. Participants were separated into five groups, according to MCR status: MCR as defined by (1) slow gait speed exclusively (MCRs); (2) increased FTSS time exclusively (MCRf); (3) slow gait speed and increased FTSS time (MCRsaf); (4) MCR; irrespective of the mobility test used (MCRsof); and (5) the absence of MCR. Cognitive status (i.e., a-MCI, na-MCI, cognitively healthy) was also determined.>Results: The prevalence of MCRs was higher, when compared to the prevalence of MCRf (12.0% versus 6.2% with P ≤ 0.001). There existed infrequent overlap (2.4%) between individuals exhibiting MCRs and MCRf, and frequent overlap between individuals exhibiting MCRs and na-MCI (up to 50%). a-MCI and na-MCI were negatively [odd ratios (OR) ≤ 0.17 with P ≤ 0.019] and positively (OR ≥ 2.41 with P ≤ 0.019) related to MCRs, respectively.>Conclusion: Individuals with MCRf are distinct from those with MCRs. MCRf status does not relate to MCI status in the same way that MCRs does. MCRs is related negatively to a-MCI and positively to na-MCI. These results suggest that FTTS cannot be used to define MCR when the goal is to predict the risk of cognitive decline, such as future dementia.
机译:>背景:慢速行走,进行五次站立站立(FTSS)测试的时间和运动性认知风险综合症(MCR;定义为步态缓慢与主观认知障碍相结合)分别用于筛查有认知下降风险的老年人。这项研究旨在(1)比较年龄较慢的MCR的特征,如慢速行走和/或增加FTSS时间所定义; (2)研究MCR及其运动成分与轻度认知障碍的记忆消除(a-MCI)和非记忆(na-MCI)之间的关系。>方法:从“步态和阿尔茨海默氏病相互作用追踪”横断面研究中选择不含痴呆症的人。缓慢的步态速度和增加的FTSS时间用作定义MCR的标准。根据MCR的状态将参与者分为五组:(1)仅由慢步态速度(MCR)定义的MCR; (2)仅增加了FTSS时间(MCRf); (3)步态速度慢,FTSS时间增加(MCRsaf); (4)MCR;不论使用的迁移率测试(MCRsof); (5)没有MCR。还确定了认知状态(即a-MCI,na-MCI,认知健康)。>结果:与MCRf的患病率相比,MCR的患病率更高(12.0%比6.2% P≤0.001)。表现出MCRs和MCRf的个体之间不频繁重叠(2.4%),表现出MCRs和na-MCI的个体之间频繁重叠(高达50%)。与MCR相关的a-MCI和na-MCI分别为负[比值(OR)≤0.17,P≤0.019]和正(OR≥2.41,P≤0.019)。>结论: MCRf与具有MCR的MCRf不同。 MCRf状态与MCR状态不一样,它与MCI状态无关。 MCR与a-MCI负相关,与na-MCI正相关。这些结果表明,当目标是预测认知能力下降的风险(例如未来的痴呆)时,FTTS不能用于定义MCR。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号