↓ Skip to main content

Short Physical Performance Battery and all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
65 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
571 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
874 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
Short Physical Performance Battery and all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0763-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rita Pavasini, Jack Guralnik, Justin C. Brown, Mauro di Bari, Matteo Cesari, Francesco Landi, Bert Vaes, Delphine Legrand, Joe Verghese, Cuiling Wang, Sari Stenholm, Luigi Ferrucci, Jennifer C. Lai, Anna Arnau Bartes, Joan Espaulella, Montserrat Ferrer, Jae-Young Lim, Kristine E. Ensrud, Peggy Cawthon, Anna Turusheva, Elena Frolova, Yves Rolland, Valerie Lauwers, Andrea Corsonello, Gregory D. Kirk, Roberto Ferrari, Stefano Volpato, Gianluca Campo

Abstract

The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) is a well-established tool to assess lower extremity physical performance status. Its predictive ability for all-cause mortality has been sparsely reported, but with conflicting results in different subsets of participants. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between SPPB score and all-cause mortality. Articles were searched in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and BioMed Central between July and September 2015 and updated in January 2016. Inclusion criteria were observational studies; >50 participants; stratification of population according to SPPB value; data on all-cause mortality; English language publications. Twenty-four articles were selected from available evidence. Data of interest (i.e., clinical characteristics, information after stratification of the sample into four SPPB groups [0-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12]) were retrieved from the articles and/or obtained by the study authors. The odds ratio (OR) and/or hazard ratio (HR) was obtained for all-cause mortality according to SPPB category (with SPPB scores 10-12 considered as reference) with adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index. Standardized data were obtained for 17 studies (n = 16,534, mean age 76 ± 3 years). As compared to SPPB scores 10-12, values of 0-3 (OR 3.25, 95%CI 2.86-3.79), 4-6 (OR 2.14, 95%CI 1.92-2.39), and 7-9 (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.32-1.71) were each associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. The association between poor performance on SPPB and all-cause mortality remained highly consistent independent of follow-up length, subsets of participants, geographic area, and age of the population. Random effects meta-regression showed that OR for all-cause mortality with SPPB values 7-9 was higher in the younger population, diabetics, and men. An SPPB score lower than 10 is predictive of all-cause mortality. The systematic implementation of the SPPB in clinical practice settings may provide useful prognostic information about the risk of all-cause mortality. Moreover, the SPPB could be used as a surrogate endpoint of all-cause mortality in trials needing to quantify benefit and health improvements of specific treatments or rehabilitation programs. The study protocol was published on PROSPERO (CRD42015024916).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 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 874 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 874 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 91 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 9%
Student > Bachelor 83 9%
Researcher 82 9%
Student > Postgraduate 53 6%
Other 161 18%
Unknown 321 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 201 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 126 14%
Sports and Recreations 64 7%
Neuroscience 16 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 2%
Other 90 10%
Unknown 362 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 April 2024.
All research outputs
#590,693
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#431
of 4,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,158
of 424,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#12
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 424,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.