br Muscle strength br Muscle strength was assessed by hand
2.2. Muscle strength
Muscle strength was assessed by hand grip and knee extensor strength tests (Morishita et al., 2015). Hand grip strength was asso-ciated with TUG score in older women (Alonso et al., 2018); thus, we also investigated grip strength.
2.3. Hand grip strength
Hand grip strength (kgf) was evaluated using a standard adjustable-handle dynamometer (TKK5101; Takei Scientific Instruments, Niigata, Japan) positioned at the second grip position for all participants. The dynamometer was adjusted to each participant's hand size. During the assessment, participants were requested to stand upright with the feet shoulder-width apart and look forward, with their elbows fully ex-tended. The dynamometer was held by the testing hand with the grip meter indicator facing outward and away from any part of the body. Participants were instructed to squeeze the grip with full force con-tinuously for at least 2 s. Clinical Biomechanics 69 (2019) 28–33
Demographics and clinical characteristics of cancer survivors and healthy participants.
Characteristics Cancer survivors Healthy participants p-Value
Endometrial cancer 2 (7.7)
Testicular cancer 1 (3.8)
Colorectal cancer 1 (3.8)
Duration of disease (days)
Breast cancer survivors Healthy women
Non-breast cancer Healthy participants
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation, n (%), or median [range].
2.4. Knee-extensor muscle strength
Knee-extensor muscle strength (kgf) was measured as an index of lower limb strength using a hand-held dynamometer (μ-TAS MT1; Anima, Tokyo, Japan). For all measurements, a stabilizing belt was used to aid the tester in applying resistance. Knee extension force was tested with participants sitting with the knee flexed at approximately 60°. The dynamometer was applied to the anterior surface of the tibia, proximal to the malleoli. The maximum force developed during 10 s of static eﬀort was recorded. Both strength tests were normalized and expressed as percentage of body weight.
S. Morishita, et al.
The Mini-BESTest evaluates important aspects of dynamic balance control, such as the capability to react to postural perturbations, to stand on a compliant or inclined surface, and to walk while performing a cognitive task (Franchignoni et al., 2010). It consists of 14 items, with a maximum score of 28 points. A higher score indicates better balance function.
TUG is a reliable test for quantifying functional mobility that Rocaglamide may also be useful in monitoring clinical changes over time (Podsiadlo and Richardson, 1991). Participants performed the TUG single- and cogni-tive dual-task tests (Chen and Tang, 2016). In the TUG single-task test, participants stood up from a seated position, walked forward 3 m as quickly as possible, turned around, walked back to the chair, and sat down. In the TUG cognitive dual-task test, the participants completed the TUG test while counting backward by 3's from a randomly selected number between 80 and 99. The time to complete each TUG test was recorded to the nearest 0.1 s with a stopwatch, beginning when the participant's back left the chair's back and ending when the participant's buttocks touched the chair's seat. The mean TUG single-task time for individuals at least 60 years old was 9.4 s (Bohannon, 2006).
Body sway was measured using a gravicorder force platform (GS-10; Anima Inc., Tokyo, Japan) (Fig. 1). The center of pressure (CoP), as the index of postural stability, was measured once using a gravicorder force platform under a 20-Hz sampling rate. Tasks were performed under two conditions: eyes open or eyes closed. The participants were instructed to stand barefoot or wearing thin stockings on a force plate and to keep their feet together and arms to the sides for 30 s. In the eyes-open condition, participants were asked to look at a small black circle 200 cm away. The total CoP length was represented by the total CoP excursion length in both anteroposterior and mediolateral directions in 30 s. The total CoP length was calculated as a parameter of conventional sta-tionary analysis.
The participants were instructed to stand barefoot or wearing thin stockings on a force plate and to keep their feet together and arms to the sides for 30 s (A). Tasks were performed under two conditions: (a) eyes open or (b) eyes closed. In the eyes-open condition, Allelic exclusion were asked to look at a small black circle 200 cm away. Clinical Biomechanics 69 (2019) 28–33
2.8. Statistical analysis
All quantitative variables are expressed as mean ± SD, unless stated otherwise. Demographic and clinical characteristics were com-pared using the Student's t-test (continuous measures) and the Pearson's χ2 test (ordinal variables). The Student's t-test was used to compare muscle strength normalized for body weight, TUG time, and CoP length (if the data were normally distributed). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare Mini-BESTest performance between the groups (if the data were ordinal). The Pearson's correlation coeﬃcient was used to evaluate muscle strength in relation to TUG time and CoP length (if the data were normally distributed). The Spearman's rank correlation coeﬃcient was used to evaluate potential associations between muscle strength and Mini-BESTest (if the data were ordinal). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 19.0J (SPSS Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan), with p < .05 considered statistically significant.