ArticlePloS one2024
Test-retest reliability of Latin American Group for Maturity (GDLAM) protocol in older women.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional autonomy (FA) is a critical factor in determining the quality of life of older adults (OA), especially in the case of older women (OW), as they face a decline in FA in their later years of life. FA should be assessed early, using valid, reliable, and low-cost tests. This study evaluated the test-retest reliability of GDLAM and GDLAM autonomy index (GI) in OW. Thirty-nine OW (71.2 ± 6.50 years) participated in the study. A repeated measures design was used to compare the interday test-retest reliability of the five GDLAM tests (seconds) and the GI (points). The five tests represent activities of daily living, such as dressing or wandering around the house, while the GI provides a weighting of the results of the five tests. The analysis consisted of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), and coefficient of variation (CV). A CV ≤ 10% and an ICC ≥ 0.80 were considered acceptable reliability, whereas a CV ≤ 5% and an ICC ≥ 0.90 were considered high reliability. The outcome of the five tests, represented by the GI, showed high interday test-retest reliability (CV = 6.00% and ICC = 0.91). The results of this study demonstrate that the five tests of the GDLAM protocol and the GI have high interday test-retest reliability and good interday reproducibility. From a practical point of view, the GDLAM protocol allows the assessment of FA of community-dwelling OW, providing background for early diagnosis and, with it, the possibility of developing an individualized physical exercise prescription.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.