What is the optimal chair stand test protocol for older adults? A systematic review

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the chair stand test protocol that is most suitable for older adults in clinical settings by reviewing the currently available methods.

Methods: Five electronic English databases were searched and details of methods used on individuals aged ≥65 years in the included studies were compared, including the instrument used to record time, units of measurement, chair characteristics (seat height, armrests), footwear, permission to use upper extremities and walking aids, pace of performance, total number of chair stands, timing points, total number of recorded and practice tests.

Results: A total of 23 eligible studies were identified. The type of instrument to record performance time, characteristics of the chair and footwear were not frequently mentioned. A majority of studies did not permit the use of the upper extremities or walking aids during assessment. The performance of five chair stands at a fast pace recorded in seconds was most common, with the majority of studies recording the initial and end time point in a seated position. The total number of performed tests and practice tests was not specified in a majority of studies.

Conclusion: A feasible and safe protocol for the chair stand test is proposed for assessment of older adults.

Implications for Rehabilitation

• The chair stand test may provide valuable information on declines in mobility in older adults.

• The use of the chair stand test within clinical settings of older adults may provide a measure to identify frail individuals and to determine their level of frailty.

• Using the proposed protocol for the chair stand test may allow for the comparability of results.

Keywords:

• Sit-to-stand test
• mobility
• musculoskeletal conditions
• sarcopenia
• objective assessment
• frailty

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the RMIT PhD Scholarship provided to Hanife Mehmet for her PhD study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.