Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

SPPB or chair stand test: Which is associated with mortality risk in high-functioning older adults?

Created on 09 Aug 2026

Authors

Roberta de Oliveira Máximo, Mariane Marques Luiz, Andrew Steptoe, Cesar de Oliveira, Tiago da Silva Alexandre

Published in

Maturitas. Volume 212. Pages 109080. Aug 04, 2026. Epub Aug 04, 2026.

Abstract

To investigate the associations of the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and the Chair Stand Test (CST) with all-cause mortality risk among high-functioning older adults over a 15-year follow-up.
Longitudinal cohort study using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) with a 15-year follow-up.
General community in England.
A population-based sample of 2747 individuals with baseline high physical function (gait speed > 0.8 m/s or > 1.0 m/s). Poor lower extremity function was defined as SPPB ≤ 10 points and CST > 15 s.
All-cause mortality during the follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for sociodemographic, behavioural, and clinical factors were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs).
Mortality rates were 19.6 and 39.7 per 1000 person-years for SPPB > 10 and ≤ 10 points, and 21.9 and 41.4 per 1000 person-years for CST ≤ 15 and > 15 s, respectively. The risk of mortality was 31% higher for SPPB ≤ 10 points (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.12-1.54) and 36% higher for CST > 15 s (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.13-1.62). In a sensitivity analysis (gait speed > 1.0 m/s), the risk of mortality was 43% higher for SPPB ≤ 10 (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.83) and 75% higher for CST > 15 s (HR 1.75; 95% CI 1.30-2.36).
Both the SPPB and the CST were associated with mortality risk among high-functioning older adults. However, given its quick, easy application, CST may be preferable in clinical settings.

PMID:
42570528
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 09 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 10
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement