Work

Response to comments

Year: 2024

Type: article

Abstract: We appreciate the interest shown in our paper by Ates Bulut.1, 2 We offer the following responses. First, we would like to clarify that the numbers in Table 1 showing that gait speed measurements appeared similar between the two groups (deceased vs alive) is because the unit (m/s) and numbers are rounded to one decimal. In fact, the actual numbers are 1.06 m/s (alive) versus 0.98 m/s (deceased). Second, we tested normality for all three exposures. We had an accepted skewness (−0.5 0.5) and kurtosis (−2 2) for gait speed and handgrip strength, and a slight skew to the right for chair stand. After log-transfer for the chair stand variable, the overall conclusion was similar. Third, the suggestion to calculate sarcopenia rate according to the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 algorithm is a good one; however, it is not the objective of our study. The objective was to identify optimal objective measurement of physical function and its predictive capacity for mortality. Fourth, we disagree with the statement: “In the study, the gait speed and the chair stand test were not correlated. The measurement of the chair stand test may not have been conducted properly. Accordingly, the chair stand test was not found to be associated with mortality.” We are not sure how the author arrived at this conclusion, which is unfounded. We estimated the correlation between the two variables. The Pearson correlation r = −0.5 is significant regardless of log-transformation of chair stand. Also, based on the results presented in Table 2, the chair stand test was found to be significantly associated with mortality. Last, we also disagree with the statement: “Also, the defined first and second optimum cut-points for the average hand grip strength (17 kg vs 6 kg) and timed chair stand test (15 vs 8) were incompatible.” We are not sure what the author means by “incompatible”. We suspect that the author misunderstood our method for identifying first and second optimum cut-points. In fact, the first and second optimum cut-points are not necessarily compatible, as the second optimum cut-point is an additional cut-point after identifying the first optimum cut-point in the model. It can be used to categorize the variable into three categories rather than only dichotomizing them. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Source: Geriatrics and gerontology international/Geriatrics & gerontology international

DOI: 10.1111/ggi.14851

Authors: Juhua Luo, Michael Hendryx

Institutions: Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana University

Language: English

Topic: Nutrition and Health in Aging

Subfield: Physiology

Field: Medicine

Domain: Health Sciences

SDG: Good health and well-being

Open Access status: hybrid

Estimated APC paid: $3,750