Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov 26;12(23):2378.
doi: 10.3390/healthcare12232378.

One-Leg Standing Test with Eyes Open as a Screening Tool for Prefrailty in Community-Dwelling Older Japanese Women

Zhenyue Liu  1   2 , Shuji Sawada  1   3 , Hisashi Naito  1   2   3 , Shuichi Machida  1   2   3
Affiliations

One-Leg Standing Test with Eyes Open as a Screening Tool for Prefrailty in Community-Dwelling Older Japanese Women

Zhenyue Liu et al. Healthcare (Basel). .

Abstract

Background/Objectives: One-leg standing test with eyes open (OLST), a well-known balance assessment, is simple to implement and requires no special measuring equipment or space. Prefrailty has greater reversibility than frailty, and early detection of prefrailty is essential for frailty prevention in older adults, especially women. However, the association between the OLST and prefrailty remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to verify the relationship between the OLST and prefrailty and to validate the effectiveness of the OLST as a screening tool for prefrailty in older Japanese women. Methods: This study included 208 community-dwelling older women (mean age: 74.4 ± 5.1 years; range: 65-89) who underwent frailty assessments and OLST. Prefrailty was assessed using the Japanese version of the Cardiovascular Health Study (J-CHS) criteria. The association between prefrailty and OLST was assessed by binary logistic regression analysis, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to examine the effectiveness of OLST as a screening tool for prefrailty. Results: OLST time was significantly associated with prefrailty, and those with higher OLST times were less likely to have prefrailty (ORs: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97-0.99; p < 0.001). The area under the curve of the OLST for prefrailty was 0.713 (p < 0.001), and the optimal OLST cut-off time for discriminating prefrailty was 24 s (sensitivity: 0.56, specificity: 0.77). Conclusions: OLST could be used as a screening tool for prefrailty in older Japanese women. These findings may contribute to the early detection and prevention of frailty.

Keywords: community-dwelling older adults; early detection; prefrailty; static balance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study protocol. J-CHS, Japanese version of the Cardiovascular Health Study; OLST, one-leg standing test with eyes open.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Comparison of the OLST between the prefrailty and robust groups. The median and interquartile range of OLST times in the two groups are shown. (b) Distribution of the participants in the prefrailty group (n = 81) by OLST times. (c) Distribution of the participants in the robust group (n = 127) by OLST times. ** p < 0.001; OLST, one-leg standing test with eyes open.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of variables for discriminating prefrailty in participants. AUC, 95% CI, and p-values are given. AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; OLST, one-leg standing test with eyes open.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of the proportion of J-CHS score (0, 1, and 2) in the two groups divided according to the optimal OLST cut-off time (24 s). J-CHS score of 0 is “robust”, and scores of 1 or 2 are “prefrailty”. Proportions between the two groups were compared using the chi-square test. OLST, one-leg standing test with eyes open; J-CHS, Japanese version of the Cardiovascular Health Study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Clegg A., Young J., Iliffe S., Rikkert M.O., Rockwood K. Frailty in Elderly People. Lancet. 2013;381:752–762. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62167-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dent E., Martin F.C., Bergman H., Woo J., Romero-Ortuno R., Walston J.D. Management of Frailty: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions. Lancet. 2019;394:1376–1386. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31785-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kojima G., Iliffe S., Jivraj S., Walters K. Association between Frailty and Quality of Life among Community-Dwelling Older People: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2016;70:716–721. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-206717. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Satake S., Arai H. Chapter 1 Frailty: Definition, Diagnosis, Epidemiology. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2020;20((Suppl. S1)):7–13. doi: 10.1111/ggi.13830. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Murayama H., Kobayashi E., Okamoto S., Fukaya T., Ishizaki T., Liang J., Shinkai S. National Prevalence of Frailty in the Older Japanese Population: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2020;91:104220. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104220. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources