↓ Skip to main content

Effect of anaemia on hand grip strength, walking speed, functionality and 1 year mortality in older hospitalized patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of anaemia on hand grip strength, walking speed, functionality and 1 year mortality in older hospitalized patients
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0326-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Etienne Joosten, Elke Detroyer, Koen Milisen

Abstract

Anaemia is a common problem in hospitalized older patients and is recognized as a risk factor for a significant number of adverse outcomes. Data of the effect of anaemia on functional status during hospitalization and mortality after discharge are limited. Aim of the study is to examine whether there is an association between anaemia, hand grip strength, gait speed and basic activities of daily living (ADL) during hospitalization and mortality 1 year after discharge in geriatric patients. In a prospective study, data on age, sex, body mass index, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), main clinical diagnosis, number of comorbidities, hand grip strength, gait speed, ADL, haemoglobin, C-reactive protein and estimated Glomerular filtration ratio (eGFR) were recorded in 220 older patients, admitted to the acute geriatric ward of a university hospital. Anaemia was defined as a haemoglobin level <13 g/dL for men and <12 g/dL for women and was further specified into severe (haemoglobin level <10 g/dL for both men and women) and moderate anaemia (haemoglobin between 10 and 12 g/dL for women and 10 and 13 g/dL for men). Gait speed (in meters per second) was calculated after a 4.5 m walk and hand grip strength (in kilogram) was assessed with a hydraulic hand dynamometer. Functionality was assessed in the six basic activities of daily living. Information about the vital status was obtained 1 year after discharge with a telephone call. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to examine the effect of the anaemia status on the walking speed, hand grip strength and premorbid ADL index and logistic regression analysis was used to examine whether anaemia could be identified as risk factors for mortality 12 months after discharge. Overall, 106 (48 %) patients had anaemia. Hand-grip strength, gait speed and ADL score were not significantly different between anaemic and non-anaemic hospitalized geriatric patients. After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, eGFR, MMSE, number of comorbidities and main clinical diagnosis, the means for hand-grip strength were 17.3, 19.9 and 19.1 kg (p = 0.38); for gait speed 0.57, 0.52 and 0.47 m/s (p = 0.28); and for the ADL score 3.50, 3.05 and 3.30 (p = 0.75) in patients with severe, moderate and without anaemia, respectively. In the unadjusted model, the odds ratio for mortality 1 year after discharge was 2.72 (95 % CI 1.20-6.14) and 4.70 (95 % CI 1.91-11.77) for moderate and severe anaemia, respectively, with no anaemia as the reference group. After adjustment for several confounders, a haemoglobin level less than 10 g/dl (OR 3.87; 95 % CI 1.25-11.99) remained significantly associated with an increased mortality over that 1 year period. Our results do not support that anaemia on admission is associated with a decline in physical performance (hand grip strength and gait speed) and functionality (ADL) during hospitalization in older patients. However, severe anaemia is a significant risk factor for an increased mortality over a 1 year period after discharge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 7 9%
Professor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 28 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Engineering 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 29 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,271,203
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,151
of 3,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,848
of 343,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#29
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,546 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.