Effects of a progressive walking program on the risk of developing locomotive syndrome in elderly Japanese people: a single-arm trial.
Toshinori Yoshihara, Hayao Ozaki, Takashi Nakagata and 10 others
PMID 30214122WHAT IT FOUND
In 24 untrained older adults, a 4-month progressive walking program improved two-step test scores and self-reported locomotive syndrome risk, but stand-up scores did not change.
Without a control group, this cannot prove the program caused the improvements.
Key findings
01The two-step test score increased from 1.36 to 1.43, and the GLFS score decreased from 5.7 to 3.3 on a scale where higher scores mean greater locomotive syndrome risk, while the stand-up test score did not significantly change.
02Knee flexor strength and the knee flexor weight-bearing index improved, while knee extensor strength did not significantly change.
03Fifteen of 24 participants met locomotive syndrome criteria at baseline, and six participants met the criteria after the program.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was single-arm and had no control group, so it cannot show that the walking program caused the changes. Only 24 participants completed the program, and all were able to undertake light-to-moderate walking, so results may not apply to more limited older adults. The paper did not report how many people were recruited or dropped out, only that 24 completed the program. The stand-up test was described as a step-by-step screening value that may not be sensitive enough to detect training effects. The researchers could not confirm whether participants maintained the intended walking pace between treadmill checks.
Declared interests
The research was supported by the Center of Innovation Program from Japan Science and Technology Agency. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the walking program caused the change from 15 of 24 participants meeting criteria to six participants. The study had no control group, and the authors state that a no-intervention control group would have made the outcomes stronger.