Maximum Walking Speed Can Improve the Diagnostic Value of Frailty among Community-Dwelling Older Adults a Cross-Sectional Study


This study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the combination of usual walking speed (UWS) and maximum walking speed (MWS) to identify frailty in community-dwelling older adults. A population-based study with 758 participants aged 65 and older was conducted. Frailty syndrome was determined using the Fried phenotype. UWS and MWS were evaluated in a 4.6-meter path. Both measures were categorized using the 1.0 m/s cut points, and participants were categorized into three groups: those with “very good”, “good” and “insufficient” walking reserve capacity (WRC). Of all participants, 9% were identified as frail and 47% as prefrail. The “insufficient” WRC presented a low sensitivity of 0.55, high specificity of 0.91 and moderately useful likelihood ratios (LR+ 6.57, LR- 0.48) to identify frailty. Based on Fagan’s nomogram, an elder’s corresponding post-test probability of being frail with an “insufficient” WRC would be around 40%, which substantially increased the diagnostic accuracy of frailty.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Morley JE, Vellas B, van Kan GA, Anker SD, Bauer JM, Bernabei R, et al. Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(6):392–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Clegg A, Rogers L, Young J. Diagnostic test accuracy of simple instruments for identifying frailty in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2015;44(1):148–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, Leveille SG, Markides KS, Ostir GV, et al. 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. 2000;55(4):M221–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Cesari M, Onder G, Russo A, Zamboni V, Barillaro C, Ferrucci L, et al. Comorbidity and physical function: results from the aging and longevity study in the Sirente geographic area (ilSIRENTE study). Gerontology. 2006;52(1):24–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Studenski S. Bradypedia: is gait speed ready for clinical use? J Nutr Health Aging. 2009;13(10):878–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ruggero CR, Bilton TL, Teixeira LF, Ramos JeL, Alouche SR, Dias RC, et al. Gait speed correlates in a multiracial population of community-dwelling older adults living in Brazil: a cross-sectional population-based study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:182.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Perera S, Patel KV, Rosano C, Rubin SM, Satterfield S, Harris T, et al. Gait Speed Predicts Incident Disability: A Pooled Analysis. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71(1):63–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Abellan van Kan G, Rolland Y, Andrieu S, Bauer J, Beauchet O, Bonnefoy M, et al. Gait speed at usual pace as a predictor of adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people an International Academy on Nutrition and Aging (IANA) Task Force. J Nutr Health Aging. 2009;13(10):881–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Verghese J, Holtzer R, Lipton RB, Wang C. Quantitative gait markers and incident fall risk in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009;64(8):896–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Watson NL, Rosano C, Boudreau RM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Sutton-Tyrrell K, et al. Executive function, memory, and gait speed decline in well-functioning older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010;65(10):1093–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Caraguel CGB, Vanderstichel R. The two-step Fagan’s nomogram: ad hoc interpretation of a diagnostic test result without calculation. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2013;18(4): 125–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Prosser R, Harvey L, LaStayo P, Hargreaves I, Scougall P, D Hebert R. Provocative wrist tests and MRI are of limited diagnostic value for suspected wrist ligament injuries: a cross-sectional study. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Akobeng AK. nderstanding diagnostic tests 2: likelihood ratios, pre-and post-test probabilities and their use in clinical practice. Acta Pædiatrica. 2006; 487–91.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Attia J. Moving beyond sensitivity and specificity: using likelihood ratios to help interpret diagnostic tests. In: Lecturer S, editor. Australian Prescriber. 2003.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Rodrigues Perracini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Do Carmo Correia de Lima, M., Loffredo Bilton, T., De Sousa Soares, W.J. et al. Maximum Walking Speed Can Improve the Diagnostic Value of Frailty among Community-Dwelling Older Adults a Cross-Sectional Study. J Frailty Aging 8, 39–41 (2019).

Download citation


  • Usual gait speed
  • fast gait speed
  • sensitivity
  • specificity
  • likelihood ratios