Purpose: To compare stroke subjects with different levels of functional mobility, as determined by the Timed “Up and Go” (TUG) test, with controls and outline which clinical functional measures could be combined to predict functional mobility. Method: Twenty-two chronic stroke (54.7 ± 15.4 years) and 22 healthy subjects (54.7 ± 15.4 years) performed the TUG and were assessed regarding the paretic or non-dominant quadriceps strength, maximal gait speed, and quality of life (QL). Each group was divided into fast, intermediate, and slow sub-groups regarding their TUG performances. ANOVAs were employed to investigate the main and interaction effects between the groups and sub-groups and discriminant analyses to predict group membership. Results: For both groups, the three sub-groups were significantly different regarding their TUG scores (26.21 < F < 32.73; p < 0.006). The significant interactions indicated that faster stroke subjects demonstrated similar TUG scores, compared to those of all the healthy sub-groups. Maximal gait speed and QL showed significant discriminant functions and correctly classified 86.4% of the original grouped cases. Conclusions: Fast stroke subjects demonstrated similar TUG performances compared to those of healthy subjects. Group membership was correctly classified for the majority of subjects, except for the fast stroke sub-group, but only for the variables related to gait speed and QL.Implications for RehabilitationSome individuals with stroke do not demonstrate poorer level of basic functional mobility, as assessed by the Timed “Up and Go” test, when compared to healthy subjectsWhen taken together with other variables which could determine functional mobility, muscular strength of the paretic quadriceps muscle (body structure and function measure) did not appear to be an important predictor of basic functional mobility levels in subjects with strokeMeasures of activity (gait speed) and participation (quality of life) may be more useful to predict levels of basic functional mobility in subjects with stroke
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Faria et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: