ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2025
Motor-cognitive interactions in older adults: reliability and comparison of Trail Walking and Stepping Trail Making Tests.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Article
- Building esprit de corps of Geriatric Medicine: The 5th anniversary of the Early Career Geriatricians Initiative (ECGI)-a personal view.European geriatric medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntegrated motor-cognitive assessments, such as the Stepping Trail Making Test (S-TMT) and Trail Walking Test (TWT), have shown promise in predicting fall risk and assessing cognitive function. However, their reliability and validity need clarification in European populations.
methodsThis intra-rater test-retest reliability study involved community-dwelling older adults aged 65+. Participants completed both the S-TMT and the TWT across two sessions, 1 week apart, to assess reliability and correlation. The S-TMT required participants to step on numbered squares in sequence on a 1 × 1 meter mat, while the TWT involved walking through a randomized sequence of 15 numbered flags within a 5 × 5 meter area. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and correlations were assessed using Pearson correlation.
resultsWe included 34 participants (mean age 74.9, 23 female). Both tests demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability: the S-TMT showed an ICC of 0.81 to 0.93, while the TWT showed an ICC of 0.83 to 0.97 based on number of trials. The S-TMT exhibited significant learning effects between sessions, whereas the TWT showed minimal learning effects. A moderate correlation (r = 0.48) was found between the tests, indicating they assess different aspects of motor-cognitive function.
conclusionThe S-TMT and TWT are reliable and complimentary tools for assessing motor-cognitive interactions in older adults. The S-TMT is suitable for single assessment as learning effects limits short-time re-testing, whereas the TWT seems more appropriate for repeated testing. Further studies should validate these results across diverse populations and explore their predictive value for long-term outcomes.
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.