Comparison of field- and laboratory-based estimates of muscle quality index between octogenarians and young older adults: an observational study

13Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Muscle quality (the ratio of strength to lean muscle mass) might be a better indicator of muscle function than strength alone. Differences in muscle quality index (MQI) between octogenarians and young older adults remain unclear. The aims of the present cross-sectional study were to compare (1) MQI between octogenarians and young older adults, (2) lab versus field-based MQI tools, and (3) determine possible confounding factors affecting MQI in older adults. Compiled data from two cross-sectional studies included 175 younger and older adults (31 men and 144 women) with a mean age of 75.93 ± 9.49 years. Participants with age ≥ 80 years old were defined as octogenarians (n = 79) and < 80 years was defined as young older adults (n = 96). Laboratory MQI was derived from the ratio of grip strength to arm muscle mass (in kg) mea- sured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Field-based MQI was quantified from the ratio of grip strength to body mass index (BMI). Octogenarians displayed lower field (P = 0.003) and laboratory MQI (P<0.001) as compared with young older adults. There was a strong correlation effect between field MQI and laboratory MQI (P=0.001, R= 0.85). BMI (P=0.001), and diabetes mellitus (P= 0.001) negatively affected MQI. Women presented lower MQI (P= 0.001) values than men. In light of this information, rehabilitation specialists should consider the use of field-based MQI as a tool for evaluation and follow-up of older population.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

da Cunha Nascimento, D., Prestes, J., de Sousa Diniz, J., Beal, P. R., Alves, V. P., Stone, W., & Rodrigues Beal, F. L. (2020). Comparison of field- and laboratory-based estimates of muscle quality index between octogenarians and young older adults: an observational study. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation, 16(5), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.2040668.334

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free