Key numbers
16,534
Participants in the pooled SPPB analysis (Pavasini 2016)
76 ± 3 years
Mean age in the pooled analysis
2.14 (95%CI 1.92-2.39)
Odds ratio for death from any cause, total score 4-6 versus 10-12
Where it came from
Guralnik and colleagues (1994) used the battery in more than 5,000 people aged 71 and older from three communities. Each test was scored, and a summary performance scale combined them.
They concluded that performance measures can validly describe older people across a broad range of lower-body function.
What it adds beyond asking people
Each test, and the summary scale, was strongly associated with how much disability people reported themselves. But the tests also added something. Among people who reported almost no disability, performance scores still separated a gradient of risk for death and for nursing home admission.
In analyses that accounted for both, self-reported items and performance tests were each independent predictors of short-term mortality in this group. The authors' view was that the two kinds of measure complement each other.
What a larger review found for the total score
Pavasini and colleagues (2016) pooled 17 studies with 16,534 participants, mean age 76 ± 3 years. Compared with a total score of 10-12, a score of 4-6 was associated with higher all-cause mortality, with an odds ratio of 2.14 (95%CI 1.92-2.39) after adjustment for age, sex and BMI.
The link between poor SPPB performance and mortality held consistently across follow-up length, subsets of participants, geographic area and the age of the population. For scores of 7-9, the odds ratio was larger in younger populations and in people with diabetes.
These are associations in groups of older adults. The meta-analysis looked at the battery's total score, so it says nothing on its own about a single chair-rise task.
The evidence
Each cited source is labeled according to how it supports the particular claim on this page. Direct test evidence, underlying-capacity findings and population reference values are distinguished from Systematic-defined protocols and standards. Historical development notes are retained internally rather than presented as public evidence. A study of an underlying capacity is never presented as validation of the Systematic test itself.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Guralnik et al. (1994). A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. Journal of gerontology.
What it found. In more than 5,000 people aged 71 and older from three communities, each test and the summary scale were strongly associated with self-reported disability, and the tests added information that self-report did not.
What it does not show. It does not show that poor performance causes death, and five rises from a chair is not the same task as the floor-based Sitting-Rising Test.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Pavasini et al. (2016). Short Physical Performance Battery and all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC medicine.
What it found. Across 17 studies (16,534 participants), a total score of 4-6 was associated with higher all-cause mortality than 10-12, odds ratio 2.14 (95%CI 1.92-2.39).
What it does not show. It uses the total battery score, not a single chair stand or any Systematic test, and it does not show cause.
The Systematic Healthspan Assessment is a physical baseline. It is not a diagnosis, and it does not estimate a biological age, a disease risk or a lifespan.