Skip to content

Evaluation of the Reproducibility of Jumping Mechanography

Evaluation of the Reproducibility of Jumping Mechanography in Older Adults and Comparison With Current Functional Assessment Tools

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01164670
Acronym
Jump
Enrollment
96
Registered
2010-07-19
Start date
2010-05-31
Completion date
2011-03-31
Last updated
2015-10-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Sarcopenia

Brief summary

Sarcopenia, the age-related decline in muscle mass and function (widely recognized as frailty), is increasingly being appreciated, primarily in the research environment. Interventions to prevent or treat sarcopenia can be anticipated to reduce falls, fractures and thereby to facilitate independence and improve quality of life for older adults. Unfortunately, there is no current consensus definition of sarcopenia, thereby impeding clinical recognition and treatment. It has been advocated that low appendicular (arm and leg) lean mass, as measured by DXA, be utilized as a clinical diagnostic tool to define sarcopenia. While such an approach is possible, however, muscle strength loss is more rapid than mass loss, indicating deterioration of muscle quality. Muscle quality may be affected by changes at the neuromuscular, cellular or subcellular levels; parameters not detected by measuring mass alone. Clearly, tools evaluating muscle performance, not simply mass, are needed to optimally identify, and subsequently monitor, treatment of older adults with sarcopenia. While current tests of muscle power/function (e.g., chair-rising, self-selected gait velocity, etc.) do correlate with functional limitation in older adults, these existing tests have limitations in that they cannot be performed in all people, may have yes/no results rather than a continuous scale and may not be highly precise. Thus, improved muscle function assessment tools are needed, both clinically and in research venues. Jumping mechanography is very likely one such methodology.

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

University of Wisconsin, Madison
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
70 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Ambulatory, community dwelling men and women age ≥ 70 years * Able and willing to sign informed consent * Able to stand without assistance

Exclusion criteria

* Abnormalities on screening laboratory assessment deemed to be clinically significant by the study investigators * History of myocardial infarction within the prior six months or ongoing angina * History of injury or surgery within the prior six months which limits the ability to ambulate * History of severe end-organ disease, e.g., cardiovascular, hepatic, hematologic, pulmonary, etc., which might limit the ability to complete this study * History of malignancy with metastasis to the musculoskeletal system * Neuromuscular disease impairing balance to the degree of not being able to stand without assistance * BMD T-score of less than -3.5 at any measured site and a prior hip or vertebral fracture

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026