Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 435

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is Timed Up and Go Better Than Gait Speed in Predicting Health, Function, and Falls in Older Adults?

Open access
Viccaro, Laura J., Perera, Subashan, Studenski, Stephanie A.·2011·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the Timed Up and Go (TUG) is superior to gait speed in predicting multiple geriatric outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Medicare health maintenance organization and Veterans Affairs primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 65 and older (N=457). MEASUREMENTS: Baseline gait speed and TUG were used to predict health decline according to EuroQol and Medical Outcomes Study 36‐item Short Form Survey (SF‐36) global health; functional decline according to National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) activities of daily living (ADLs) score and SF‐36 physical function index; hospitalization; and any falls and multiple falls over 1 year. RESULTS: Mean age was 74, and 44% of participants were female. Odds ratios for all outcomes were equivalent for gait speed and TUG. Using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.7 or greater for acceptable predictive ability, gait speed and TUG each alone predicted decline in global health, new ADL difficulty, and falls, with no difference in predictive ability between performance measures. Neither performance measure predicted hospitalization, EuroQol decline, or physical function decline. As a continuous variable, TUG did not add predictive ability to gait speed for any outcome. CONCLUSION: Gait speed predicts most geriatric outcomes, including falls, as does TUG. The time taken to complete TUG may not add to information provided by gait speed, although its qualitative elements may have other utility.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03336.x

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 435

Metadata

Authors
Viccaro, L. J., Perera, S., & Studenski, S. A.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-03-15
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
887-892
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W1963242519
Cited by
435
References
7
FWCI
71.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is Timed Up and Go Better Than Gait Speed in Predicting Health, Function, and Falls in Older Adults? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03336.x
The paper
Viccaro, L. J., Perera, S., & Studenski, S. A. (2011). Is Timed Up and Go Better Than Gait Speed in Predicting Health, Function, and Falls in Older Adults? Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03336.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.