Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 819–825 | Cite as

Reproducibility of jumping mechanography and traditional measures of physical and muscle function in older adults

  • B. BuehringEmail author
  • D. Krueger
  • E. Fidler
  • R. Gangnon
  • B. Heiderscheit
  • N. Binkley
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Improved approaches to assess functional change over time are needed to optimally reduce fall/fracture risk; jumping mechanography (JM) may be one such methodology. In this study, JM parameters were more reproducible than traditional functional tests. JM may be better able to demonstrate efficacy of interventions to mitigate sarcopenia.

Introduction

Jumping mechanography (JM), a tool using maximal countermovement jumps performed on a force plate, may more reliably assess muscle function than traditional methods. The purpose of this study was to examine JM retest reliability in older adults compared with commonly used muscle and physical function assessments.

Methods

Community-dwelling individuals age ≥70 years performed physical and muscle function assessments including the short physical performance battery (SPPB), grip strength, and JM on multiple occasions over 3 months. JM parameters included body weight-corrected peak power and jump height. Appendicular lean mass was measured by dual energy x-ray (DXA). Mixed effects linear regression models were used to estimate between- and within-person variability summarized as intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).

Results

Ninety-seven individuals (49 females, 48 males, mean age 80.7 years) participated. All testing was well tolerated; no participant sustained injury. Jump power, height, and grip strength were greater (p < 0.0001) in men than women. Grip strength, jump power, and height had excellent ICCs (0.95, 0.93, and 0.88, respectively); chair rise, SPPB score, and gait speed had lower ICCs (0.81, 0.77, and 0.76, respectively).

Conclusion

In older adults, JM has excellent retest reliability, is stable over time, and can be performed safely. JM retest reliability was comparable to grip strength and possibly better than SPPB and gait speed. JM is a promising tool for muscle function assessment in older adults. Comparison of this approach with traditional assessment tools in longitudinal interventional studies is needed.

Keywords

DXA lean mass Jumping mechanography Muscle function Reproducibility Sarcopenia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

All authors contributed to the study concept and design, acquisition of subjects and data, analysis and interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript. This work was sponsored by an investigator initiated research grant from Merck & Co., Inc. Merck & Co., Inc and did not have any role in the design, methods, subject recruitment, data collection, analysis, or preparation of paper. Dr. Buehring receives research funding from the John A. Hartford Foundation as a Centers of Excellence in Geriatric Medicine and Geriatric Psychiatry scholar. Dr. Binkley is participating in a multicenter trial with Lilly in functional outcomes in older adults. He also consults on the same project.

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Kelly TL, Wilson KE, Heymsfield SB (2009) Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry body composition reference values from NHANES. PLoS One 4:e7038PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cawthon PM, Fullman RL, Marshall L, Mackey DC, Fink HA, Cauley JA, Cummings SR, Orwoll ES, Ensrud KE (2008) Physical performance and risk of hip fractures in older men. J Bone Miner Res 23:1037–1044PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenberg IH (1989) Epidemiologic and methodologic problems in determining nutritional status of older persons. (Summary comments). Am J Clin Nutr 50:1231–1233Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenberg IH (1997) Sarcopenia: origins and clinical relevance. J Nutr 127:990S–991SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumgartner RN, Koehler KM, Gallagher D, Romero L, Heymsfield SB, Ross RR, Garry PJ, Lindeman RD (1998) Epidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico. Am J Epidemiol 147:755–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Janssen I, Baumgartner RN, Ross R, Rosenberg IH, Roubenoff R (2004) Skeletal muscle cutpoints associated with elevated physical disability risk in older men and women. Am J Epidemiol 159:413–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Correa-de-Araujo R, Hadley E (2014) Skeletal muscle function deficit: a new terminology to embrace the evolving concepts of sarcopenia and age-related muscle dysfunction. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 69:591–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koster A, Ding J, Stenholm S et al (2011) Does the amount of fat mass predict age-related loss of lean mass, muscle strength, and muscle quality in older adults? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 66:888–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lang T, Cauley JA, Tylavsky F, Bauer D, Cummings S, Harris TB (2010) Computed tomographic measurements of thigh muscle cross-sectional area and attenuation coefficient predict hip fracture: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Bone Miner Res 25:513–519PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Visser M, Goodpaster BH, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, Nevitt M, Rubin SM, Simonsick EM, Harris TB (2005) Muscle mass, muscle strength, and muscle fat infiltration as predictors of incident mobility limitations in well-functioning older persons. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 60:324–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hairi NN, Cumming RG, Naganathan V, Handelsman DJ, Le Couteur DG, Creasey H, Waite LM, Seibel MJ, Sambrook PN (2010) Loss of muscle strength, mass (sarcopenia), and quality (specific force) and its relationship with functional limitations and physical disability: The Concord health and ageing in men project. J Am Geriatr Soc 58:2055–2062PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cawthon PM, Fox KM, Gandra SR et al (2009) Do muscle mass, muscle density, strength, and physical function similarly influence risk of hospitalization in older adults? J Am Geriatr Soc 57:1411–1419PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newman AB, Kupelian V, Visser M, Simonsick EM, Goodpaster BH, Kritchevsky SB, Tylavsky FA, Rubin SM, Harris TB (2006) Strength, but not muscle mass, is associated with mortality in the health, aging and body composition study cohort. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 61:72–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Studenski SA, Peters KW, Alley DE et al (2014) The FNIH sarcopenia project: rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 69:547–558PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dam TT, Peters KW, Fragala M et al (2014) An evidence-based comparison of operational criteria for the presence of sarcopenia. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 69:584–590PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muscaritoli M, Anker SD, Argiles J et al (2010) Consensus definition of sarcopenia, cachexia and pre-cachexia: joint document elaborated by Special Interest Groups (SIG) “cachexia-anorexia in chronic wasting diseases” and “nutrition in geriatrics”. Clin Nutr 29:154–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fielding RA, Vellas B, Evans WJ et al (2011) Sarcopenia: an undiagnosed condition in older adults. Current consensus definition: prevalence, etiology, and consequences. International working group on sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 12:249–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM et al (2010) Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 39:412–423PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mijnarends DM, Meijers JM, Halfens RJ, ter Borg S, Luiking YC, Verlaan S, Schoberer D, Cruz Jentoft AJ, van Loon LJ, Schols JM (2013) Validity and reliability of tools to measure muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14:170–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Simonsick EM, Salive ME, Wallace RB (1995) Lower-extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability. N Engl J Med 332:556–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, Leveille SG, Markides KS, Ostir GV, Studenski S, Berkman LF, Wallace RB (2000) Lower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 55:M221–M231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller DK, Wolinsky FD, Andresen EM, Malmstrom TK, Miller JP (2008) Adverse outcomes and correlates of change in the short physical performance battery over 36 months in the African American health project. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 63A:487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, Scherr PA, Wallace RB (1994) A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 49:M85–M94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dixon WG, Lunt M, Pye SR, Reeve J, Felsenberg D, Silman AJ, O’Neill TW (2005) Low grip strength is associated with bone mineral density and vertebral fracture in women. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44:642–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rantanen T, Guralnik JM, Foley D, Masaki K, Leveille S, Curb JD, White L (1999) Midlife hand grip strength as a predictor of old age disability. J Am Med Assoc 281:558–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coppin AK, Ferrucci L, Lauretani F, Phillips C, Chang M, Bandinelli S, Guralnik JM (2006) Low socioeconomic status and disability in old age: evidence from the InChianti study for the mediating role of physiological impairments. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 61:86–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Runge M, Rittweger J, Russo CR, Schiessl H, Felsenberg D (2004) Is muscle power output a key factor in the age-related decline in physical performance? A comparison of muscle cross section, chair-rising test and jumping power. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 24:335–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Buehring B, Binkley N (2013) Myostatin—the holy grail for muscle, bone, and fat? Curr Osteoporos Rep 11:407–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rolland Y, Onder G, Morley JE, Gillette-Guyonet S, Abellan van Kan G, Vellas B (2011) Current and future pharmacologic treatment of sarcopenia. Clin Geriatr Med 27:423–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dalton JT, Taylor RP, Mohler ML, Steiner MS (2013) Selective androgen receptor modulators for the prevention and treatment of muscle wasting associated with cancer. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 7:345–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buehring B, Krueger D, Binkley N (2010) Jumping mechanography: a potential tool for sarcopenia evaluation in older individuals. J Clin Densitom 13:283–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Buehring B, Hind J, Fidler E, Krueger D, Binkley N, Robbins J (2013) Tongue strength is associated with jumping mechanography performance and handgrip strength but not with classic functional tests in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 61:418–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Russo CR, Lauretani F, Bandinelli S, Bartali B, Cavazzini C, Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L (2003) High-frequency vibration training increases muscle power in postmenopausal women. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84:1854–1857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hardcastle SA, Gregson CL, Rittweger J, Crabtree N, Ward K, Tobias JH (2014) Jump power and force have distinct associations with cortical bone parameters: findings from a population enriched by individuals with high bone mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99:266–275PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rittweger J, Schiessl H, Felsenberg D, Runge M (2004) Reproducibility of the jumping mechanography as a test of mechanical power output in physically competent adult and elderly subjects. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:128–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Michaelis I, Kwiet A, Gast U, Boshof A, Antvorskov T, Jung T, Rittweger J, Felsenberg D (2008) Decline of specific peak jumping power with age in master runners. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 8:64–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Veilleux LN, Rauch F (2010) Reproducibility of jumping mechanography in healthy children and adults. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 10:256–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Matheson LA, Duffy S, Maroof A, Gibbons R, Duffy C, Roth J (2013) Intra- and inter-rater reliability of jumping mechanography muscle function assessments. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 13:480–486PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wadsworth CT, Krishnan R, Sear M, Harrold J, Nielsen DH (1987) Intrarater reliability of manual muscle testing and hand-held dynametric muscle testing. Phys Ther 67:1342–1347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chumlea WC, Cesari M, Evans WJ, Ferrucci L, Fielding RA, Pahor M, Studenski S, Vellas B, Members IWGoSTF (2011) Sarcopenia: designing phase IIB trials. J Nutr Health Aging 15:450–455PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Abellan van Kan G, Cameron Chumlea W, Gillette-Guyonet S, Houles M, Dupuy C, Rolland Y, Vellas B (2011) Clinical trials on sarcopenia: methodological issues regarding phase 3 trials. Clin Geriatr Med 27:471–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Buehring
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • D. Krueger
    • 1
  • E. Fidler
    • 1
  • R. Gangnon
    • 3
  • B. Heiderscheit
    • 4
  • N. Binkley
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Osteoporosis Clinical Research ProgramUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.GRECC, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Administration HospitalUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Departments of Biostatistics & Medical Informatics and Population HealthUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Departments of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation and Intercollegiate AthleticsUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations