Skip to main content

Timed up and go test predicts mortality in older adults in Peru: a population-based cohort study



While there is evidence about stablished risk factors (e.g., raised blood pressure) and higher mortality risk in older population, less has been explored about other functional parameters like the Timed Up and Go test and the Gait Speed in older people at low- and middle-income countries. We aimed to study these mobility tests as predictors of mortality in a population of older people in Peru.


Population-based prospective cohort study (2013–2020). Random sampling of people aged 60+ years in a community of Lima, Peru. Geriatricians conducted all clinical evaluations and laboratory tests were conducted in the local hospital. Participants were sought in the national vital registration system, and we collated cause (ICD-10) and date of death. We conducted a nested forward multivariate Cox proportional hazard model to identify all potential predictors of all-cause, communicable and non-communicable diseases mortality.


At baseline, there were 501 older people (mean age 70.6 and 62.8% were women), complete follow-up information was available from 427 people. Mean follow-up time was 46.5 months (SD = 25.3). In multivariate models, the Timed Up and Go test was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.02–1.09). For cause-specific mortality, history of heart disease (HR = 2.25; 95% CI: 1.07–4.76) and age in years (HR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01–1.09) were predictors of non-communicable diseases mortality.


In addition to established risk factors for mortality in older population, the Timed Up and Go test, a functional parameter, raised as a relevant predictor of all-cause mortality.

Peer Review reports


Aging of the population is a phenomenon fast occurring in most countries. This has sparked interest in finding risk factors for death as a result of deviations of homeostatic equilibrium, deteriorations of health and multimorbidity, while considering the complexity and heterogeneity of older adults [1]. Among other risk factors, poor mobility is of great relevance and goes beyond the overall health status of the older adult affecting their independent and quality of life [2,3,4,5].

Mobility problems in older people can be detected with tests such as the Timed Up and Go test [6] and Gait Speed [7]. These are useful to predict falls [8] and to determine frailty older people [9]. Moreover, these tests are independently associated with a higher risk of mortality [7, 10,11,12], including mortality due to Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) both in the presence of comorbidities and in the absence of known cardiovascular risk factors [11, 12]. Whether this mortality risk holds in all older populations, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries in Latin America, where prevalence of NCD, distribution of cardiovascular risk factors and access to medical care are different than in high-income countries [13, 14], is unknown.

In contrast to high-income countries, high prevalence of mental and chronic diseases, mainly dementia, frailty, depression and disability [15,16,17,18,19] directly increase rates of well-known associated adverse outcomes including mortality. Also, older people in LMIC had lower rates of socioeconomic support and health insurance [20,21,22], leading to inequity, a low level of health services access and high out-of-pocket expenses to attend their health needs [23, 24]. Finally, guidelines to risk assessment for older people could not be followed, as in other frequent conditions as diabetes and hypertension [25, 26], mainly because they are not flexible, adaptable, sociocultural accepted and economically attainable.

Even the aforementioned differences in older people’s characteristics of vulnerability between high-income versus LMIC and the well described role of Timed Up and Go test and Gait Speed in predict mortality in high-income countries [5, 27,28,29], scarce studies are done in LMIC and mainly related with all-cause mortality [30]. This evidence gap prevents recommending the application of mobility tests as a structural part of the geriatric evaluation [31]. Considering the Timed Up and Go test has the ability to explore the interactions in different systems like cardiopulmonary, nervous and musculoskeletal systems involved in it, we hypothesized that Timed Up and Go test is a good predictor not only for all-cause mortality, but also for NCD and non-NCD mortality.

To provide evidence to strengthen the recommendation of including mobility tests as part of the regular geriatric consultation in low- and middle-income countries particularly those in Latin America, we aimed to determine if mobility tests, such as Timed Up and Go test and Gait Speed, are independent predictors of mortality (all-causes, NCD, and due to infectious diseases/accidents), in a population-based cohort of community-dwelling older adults in Lima, Peru.


Study design

Originally, this was a cross-sectional study conducted in 2013 [19]. We turned this cross-sectional study into a prospective cohort by looking for the original participants in the vital registration system on 8th March 2020; from the vital registration system, we retrieved survival status (dead or alive), date of death and the underlying cause of death (ICD-10 code). These codes are found in an Additional file (see Additional file 1). We adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [32] and the study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee for Humans at Cayetano Heredia University in Lima, Peru (Reference number: 207–06-20).

Study setting

Peru is a middle-income country located in South America. This study was developed in San Martin de Porres, the second most populated district in Lima, which is the capital of Peru. This district has a current population of 755,087 residents and 10.9% of them live in poverty [33]. Period of baseline recruitment was from January to May 2013 and the survival status was ascertained on 8th March 2020. Data collection was performed by four geriatricians through a face-to-face interview at baseline. They applied a structured questionnaire that registered demographics, socioeconomic information, and a comprehensive geriatric evaluation.


Adults older than 60 years who lived in the district of San Martín de Porres were included. A total of 501 participants were enrolled and evaluated with a health interview (e.g., self-reported diseases), a physical examination (e.g., weight and height), and laboratory tests (e.g., total cholesterol).

We followed a semi-probabilistic sampling of household clusters. San Martin de Porres was divided into eight sections, according to the distribution of sixteen primary healthcare centres and one hospital. In each section, blocks were given a random number. Every day the research team was assigned one block, until the sample size for each section was reached. In each block, households were randomly selected. In each household, all those aged 60+ years were selected; if there were no older people living in the selected household, the adjacent home was visited.

Further details about the sampling methods and procedures of the cohort are available elsewhere [16, 19, 34]. On 8th March 2020, the national vital registration system was queried to ascertain the vital status of the participants, and when applicable, date and cause of death were retrieved as well.



Participants self-reported the following information (self-reported diseases and habits): heart diseases, stroke, rheumatology diseases, respiratory diseases, tuberculosis, edentulous, insomnia, visual impairment, hearing impairment, falls, incontinence, polypharmacy and tobacco consumption.

For this analysis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia were determined both by self-reported information and laboratory tests. We considered these variables as self-reported if an older adult had a previous diagnosis of each disease or if they reported the use of oral hypoglycaemic drugs or insulin for diabetes mellitus, antihypertensive drugs for hypertension, and statins, fibrates or ezetimibe for dyslipidaemia. Furthermore, as part of laboratory assessment, we considered diabetes mellitus with fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL; hypertension with ≥140 mmHg or ≥ 90 mmHg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively; and (any) dyslipidaemia as total cholesterol ≥200 mg/dL, or LDL-cholesterol ≥130 mg/dL, or triglycerides ≥200 mg/dL, or HDL-cholesterol ≥50 mg/dL if the participant was female and HDL-cholesterol ≥40 mg/dL if the participant was male. The abdominal perimeter was measured in the physical examination. In the analysis, obesity was based on body mass index (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) computed from measured weight and height.

Validated scales were used to determine geriatric syndromes: Pfeiffer test for Cognitive evaluation [35], Yesavage Geriatric Depression Scale for Depression [36], Barthel Index for the functional status [37], Gijon Socio-familial Evaluation Scale for social evaluation [38], malnutrition was evaluated with the Mini-Nutritional Assessment [39] and family APGAR test (adaptability, partnership, growth, affection and resolve) to determine familial dysfunction [40]. All of these instruments are validated, has a good reliability and are used as part of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Peru [41].

Functional parameters were collected using the Gait Speed test and a Timed Up and Go test; both measurements were taken using a calibrated stopwatch. Gait Speed was determined by the time required for the participant to walk 8 m out of a total distance of 10 m at the normal walking speed, without a warm-up period. The first and last meter of the walk were not considered. The shorter time between two measurements was recorded. We set two Gait Speed thresholds (1 and 1.2 m/second) based on prospective studies of cardiovascular events [42].

The Timed Up and Go test was assessed with the older adult sat in a chair, asked to get up, walk 3 m, turn and return to the chair. It initiates by a cue from the measurer to get up from the chair and the measurer assessed the time it takes to sit down again. We set two Timed Up and Go test thresholds (10 and 15 s) according to previously published evidence [29, 43].


The outcome was the survival status of the participants until 8th March 2020. We also studied cause-specific mortality in two groups: non-communicable diseases (NCDs) as well as accidents and infectious diseases. The ICD-10 codes in each group are shown in an Additional file (see Additional file 1).

Study sample size

At baseline, we recruited a total of 501 participants in previous studies [16, 19, 34]. Based on that information, we calculated post-hoc sample size of 314 participants (with a power of 95%).

Statistical analysis

Analyses were conducted with STATA SE 16.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, US). The statistical analysis code is available upon reasonable request.

First, characteristics of the study population were summarized using means and standard deviations (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR) for numeric variables, depending on their distribution. Skewness and Kurtosis tests and histogram were used to assess the distribution. We did not categorize quantitative variables. To compare differences between outcome groups (alive vs death or NCDs vs accidents and infectious diseases) we used the Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables; and T-test or Mann-Whitney U tests for numerical variables. Second, survival rates were analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the differences between groups were analysed by the log-rank test. Third, univariate analysis was performed to identify prognostic variables related to overall survival. We adjusted the Model 1 with age, sex and educational level. A fully adjusted model (Model 2) was developed with a nested forward multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression approach, considering only univariate variables with p values < 0.05. Complete-case analysis was performed throughout this work.


Study population

As showed in Fig. 1, at baseline, there were 501 people, and follow-up information was available from 480 individuals; finally, 427 people with complete information in all variables of interest were herein analysed (89% of the study population with follow-up data).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the population included in the analysis

There were more women (62.8%), and the overall mean age was 70.6 (standard deviation: 8.5) years at baseline; most of the study population had either primary (39.6%) or secondary (35.8%) education, while 19.2% had higher education at baseline. Overall, the mean Gait Speed was 1.00 (standard deviation: 0.3) meters/second; similarly, the median Timed Up and Go test was 10 (interquartile range: 9–13) seconds (Table 1).

Table 1 General characteristics of the study population

All-cause mortality

For all-cause mortality, the mean follow-up was 46.5 months (standard deviation: 25.3). The median Timed Up and Go test were longer among those who died (12 vs 10 s; p < 0.001) versus to those who survived (Table 1). We further stratified the Timed Up and Go test with thresholds at 15 and 10 s (Fig. 2A and B, respectively). In both cases, the survival decreased faster among those with longer Timed Up and Go test, and much faster when the Timed Up and Go test was set at > 15 s (Fig. 2A). Cumulative survival rates in Fig. 2 are unadjusted. The fully adjusted model revealed that the Timed Up and Go test increased the risk of all-cause mortality by 0.05 per one-unit change in seconds (1.05, 95% CI: 1.02–1.09; Table 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Survival curves (Kaplan-Meier) of cumulative unadjusted survival rates for the Timed Up and Go test and Gait Speed. Timed Up and Go test with a threshold of 15 s (A), for the Timed Up and Go test with a threshold of 10 s (B), for Gait Speed with a threshold of 1.0 m/second (C), and for the Gait Speed with a threshold of 1.2 m/second (D)

Table 2 Risk factors for all-cause mortality (N = 427)

The mean Gait Speed was slower in older people who died (1.03 vs 0.87 m/seconds; p < 0.001) versus those who survived (Table 1). We further stratified the Gait Speed with thresholds at 1.0 and 1.2 m/second (Fig. 2C and D, respectively). With the first cut-off point (1.0 m/second), the survival rate decreased faster among those who died (Fig. 2C); conversely, the survival rate did not decrease faster when the cut-off point was set at 1.2 m/second (Fig. 2D). The Gait Speed was not included in the adjusted Cox models; the crude analysis suggested that faster Gait Speed would be associated with lower all-cause mortality risk (HR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.06–0.37; Table 2).

Cause-specific mortality

For NCDs mortality, the mean follow-up was 45.8 months (standard deviation: 26.4); for mortality due to accidents and infectious diseases the mean follow-up was 47.1 months (standard deviation: 24.7). The Timed Up and Go test was slower in older people who died of an infectious disease or an accident than in those who died of a NCD (13.0 vs 10.9 s; Table 1). In the fully adjusted model, male sex and age (in years) were associated with higher risk of dying from an infectious disease or accident (Table 3). There were several risk factors for dying of a NCD, including self-reported history of heart diseases (HR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.07–4.76; Table 4), and age in years (HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01–1.09; Table 4).

Table 3 Risk factors for mortality of accidents and infectious diseases (N = 389)
Table 4 Risk factors for mortality of non-communicable diseases (N = 384)


Main results

In this population-based prospective cohort study of older people, and in the multivariate analysis, the Timed Up and Go test was a strong predictor of all-cause mortality, above and beyond other well-known risk factors like chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes). This suggests that the Timed Up and Go test could be part of all geriatric evaluations, in addition to the regular care and clinical assessment. Similarly, epidemiological studies could include this test in large population-based samples, to further understand its distribution and role to predict mortality. There were more risk factors strongly associated with NCDs mortality in comparison to mortality due to accidents and infectious diseases. This pinpoints the role of NCDs in the current epidemiological profile of older people living in resource-limited settings, growing apart form the idea that communicable diseases and accidents (e.g., falls) would be more relevant in these contexts.

Previous research has shown that mobility, equilibrium [44] and Timed Up and Go test scores are affected by advanced age [45]. The rise in the prevalence of medical and health conditions associated with the aging process will affect functional tests [46] and the Timed Up and Go test has the ability to reflect the burden of multimorbidity in different body systems that participate in coordination, mobility and balance [27]. The main mechanism suggested of the relationship of the increasing risk of mortality with an advancing age was through the development of multiple comorbidities that produce a poor physical performance [11].

Certainly, age is a variable that influences Timed Up and Go test and some reports have demonstrated that sex and BMI also affects Timed Up and Go test [5]. Nevertheless, Timed Up and Go test was an all-cause mortality predictor independent of age, which gives a window of opportunity for screening and intervention. While there is nothing we can do to stop aging, we could incorporate the Timed Up and Go test in the regular geriatric consultation, and intervene to improve the reasons for poor performance in this test.

Results in context

The Timed Up and Go test was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality. This goes in line with previous reports signalling that non-optimal results in the Timed Up and Go test increased the risk of all-cause mortality in the older population in high income countries by 20–60% [27, 47]; of note, these risk estimates would be higher when the underlying population had history of cardiovascular diseases or were women [29, 47]. The risk magnitude for all-cause mortality herein quantified was lower than that of these studies [27, 47], and there are potential explanations. First, these previous studies were conducted with a longer follow-up time contributing to detect more events (deaths) thus a stronger association. Second, we studied a population of Peru, a middle income country in Latin America where life expectancy increased into 2.3 years between 2005 and 2015 [48] compared with other countries [27, 47] where life expectancy increases just into 1.2–2.1 years in the same period [48].

The Timed Up and Go test is recommended as a routine screening test for falls [49], and its usefulness as a predictor of low physical performance and adverse events has been described [43, 47, 50]. It has been suggested that poor performance in the Timed Up and Go test is associated with higher mortality risk because it reflects underlying malaise, sarcopenia and chronic illness [27], all of which affects mobility, balance, strength and gait. The Timed Up and Go test is a more complex task that assess all these functions of mobility and strength, which could explain why it is a better mortality predictor than other features of the formal geriatric assessment [29]. Our results contribute and advance these recommendations by showing that the Timed Up and Go test is also associated with all-cause mortality. In so doing, we could suggest implementing the Timed Up and Go test as a regular screening test in older population, and not only to look for those at higher risk of falls.

Another important functional parameter in older population is the Gait Speed, and our results suggested, though with non-significant results in the adjusted models, that faster Gait Speed would reduce the risk of dying from communicable diseases and accidents. In the literature, poor Gait Speed has been associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality [51, 52], and it seems to be as good a tool as Timed Up and Go test to predict adverse events [43]. The reason because our results did not show a strong association could be lack of statistical power; small sample or few outcome events. In any case, our results provide preliminary evidence, pending further research, that the Gait Speed could also be incorporated as a standard screening test in older people care.

In our study, the Timed Up and Go test demonstrate to be a relevant mortality predictor, even independently of other socio-demographic traits and medical background. This functional test could be assessed more often in clinical evaluations and regular check-ups among older population in resource-limited countries. Future studies should assess the net benefit of including this test as standard and frequent care of the older population. Finally, talking about cause-specific mortality, history of heart diseases demonstrated to increase the risk for mortality of NCDs. Evidence showed that history of heart diseases increases the risk of cardiovascular disease associated with metabolic syndrome [53] and could contribute in this way to higher mortality risk due to NCDs.

Strengths and limitations

This is a population-based prospective cohort study of people aged ≥60 in a resource-limited environment in Lima, Peru. Prospective research in gerontology, and in general addressing the wellbeing of older populations lack, particularly in low- and middle-income countries [31]. Our work contributed to this research field signalling the strong association with mortality of the Timed Up and Go test, above and beyond other stablished risk factors. All predictors at baseline were collected by trained geriatricians, and blood tests were analysed in one laboratory. Mortality information was based on death certificates, and not on reported information by a family member without further verification.

Nonetheless, there are limitations we acknowledge. First, although some information was collected by trained physicians with a standard questionnaire following a strict protocol, this information remains self-reported and could be biased (e.g., recall bias); this information would also depend on whether the participant is aware they have the condition or not. As we did for diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia which were based on both self-reported and objective assessments, future work should verify our results with a more robust ascertainment of all self-reported predictors. Second, the number of outcome events was still limited to further inspect specific mortality causes (e.g., ischaemic heart disease versus stroke). Larger cohorts could provide this evidence, and future follow-ups of our cohort will also give lights about this. Additionally, hazard ratio values of stroke in Table 3 were too small, approximately zero. We believe this was a result of no stroke events in older adults who died from an infectious disease or accident; this estimate should not be interpreted as a significant finding. Third, confounding bias could influence the association between the functional parameters (Gait speed and Timed Up and Go tests) and mortality. Trying to minimize this bias, we considered multiple covariates as comorbidities, cognitive impairment, polypharmacy and visual problems in the analysis; however, residual confounding could not be ruled out due to inherent data. Fourth, we studied mortality, which is an extreme outcome. Unfortunately, it was not possible to use registry data to study other non-fatal (e.g., non-fatal myocardial infarction) and intermediate (e.g., emergency visits) outcomes; similarly, it was not possible to study healthy aging or functional decline. Future work, with an active face-to-face follow-up of the original participants could provide this information.


The Timed Up and Go test was a strong all-cause mortality predictor, displacing other stablished risk factors like chronic diseases. This could support the recommendation to consistently include the Timed Up and Go test in all geriatric consultations. Likewise, this could suggest the introduction of this test in national and epidemiological large-scale surveys studying the wellbeing of the older people.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



Non-Communicable Diseases


International Classification of Diseases


Body mass index


Years lived with disability


Disability-adjusted life-year


  1. Ferrucci L, Kuchel GA. Heterogeneity of aging: individual risk factors, mechanisms, patient priorities, and outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(3):610–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hirvensalo M, Rantanen T, Heikkinen E. Mobility difficulties and physical activity as predictors of mortality and loss of Independence in the community-living older population. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(5):493–8. PubMed PMID: 10811541. Epub 2000/05/16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Musich S, Wang SS, Ruiz J, Hawkins K, Wicker E. The impact of mobility limitations on health outcomes among older adults. Geriatric Nurs (New York, NY). 2018;39(2):162–9. PubMed PMID: 28866316. Epub 2017/09/04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Olaya B, Moneta MV, Doménech-Abella J, Miret M, Bayes I, Ayuso-Mateos JL, et al. Mobility difficulties, physical activity, and all-cause mortality risk in a nationally representative sample of older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018;73(9):1272–9. PubMed PMID: 28633439. Epub 2017/06/22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Otsuka H, Kobayashi H, Suzuki K, Hayashi Y, Ikeda J, Kushimoto M, et al. Mobility performance impacts mortality risk in community-dwelling healthy older adults in Japan: a prospective observational study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021;33(9):2511–7. PubMed PMID: 33496935. Epub 2021/01/27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “up & go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39(2):142–8. PubMed PMID: 1991946. Epub 1991/02/01.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Studenski S. Gait speed and survival in older adults. Jama. 2011;305(1):50–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the timed up & go test. Phys Ther. 2000;80(9):896–903 Epub 2000/08/29. PubMed PMID: 10960937.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–M57. PubMed PMID: 11253156. Epub 2001/03/17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Penninx BWHJ, Nicklas BJ, Simonsick EM, Newman AB, et al. Prognostic value of usual gait speed in well-functioning older People-results from the health, aging and body composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(10):1675–80. PubMed PMID: 16181165. Epub 2005/09/27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chun S, Shin DW, Han K, Jung JH, Kim B, Jung H-W, et al. The timed up and go test and the ageing heart: findings from a national health screening of 1,084,875 community-dwelling older adults. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2021;28(2):213–9. PubMed PMID: 33838038. Epub 2021/04/11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vetrano DL, Rizzuto D, Calderón-Larrañaga A, Onder G, Welmer A-K, Qiu C, et al. Walking Speed Drives the Prognosis of Older Adults with Cardiovascular and Neuropsychiatric Multimorbidity. Am J Med. 2019;132(10):1207–15.e6. Epub 2019/05/31. PubMed PMID: 31145879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Federici S, Flores-Flores O, Bell R, Reynolds R, Bernabé-Ortiz A. Older adults with disability in extreme poverty in Peru: how is their access to health care? PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208441.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, Lim S, Shibuya K, Aboyans V, et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2095–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nguyen T, Cumming RG, Hilmer SN. A review of frailty in developing countries. J Nutr Health Aging. 2015;19(9):941–6. PubMed PMID: 26482697. Epub 2015/10/21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ortiz PJ, Tello T, Aliaga EG, Casas PM, Peinado JE, Miranda JJ, et al. Effect of multimorbidity on gait speed in well-functioning older people: a population-based study in Peru. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2018;18(2):293–300. PubMed PMID: 29076226. Epub 2017/10/28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Prina AM, Stubbs B, Veronese N, Guerra M, Kralj C, Llibre Rodriguez JJ, et al. Depression and Incidence of Frailty in Older People From Six Latin American Countries. Am J Geriatric Psychiatry. 2019;27(10):1072–9. PubMed PMID: 31109899; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6742503. Epub 2019/05/22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vancampfort D, Lara E, Smith L, Rosenbaum S, Firth J, Stubbs B, et al. Physical activity and loneliness among adults aged 50 years or older in six low- and middle-income countries. Int J Geriatric Psychiatry. 2019;34(12):1855–64. PubMed PMID: 31435958; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6854283. Epub 2019/08/23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Varela-Pinedo L, Chavez-Jimeno H, Tello-Rodriguez T, Ortiz-Saavedra P, Galvez-Cano M, Casas-Vasquez P, et al. Clinical, functional and older socio-familiar profile of the community in a district of Lima, Peru. Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica. 2015;32(4):709–16 Epub 2016/01/07. PubMed PMID: 26732919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoogendijk EO, Rijnhart JJM, Kowal P, Pérez-Zepeda MU, Cesari M, Abizanda P, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in frailty among older adults in six low- and middle-income countries: results from the WHO study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE). Maturitas. 2018;115:56–63. PubMed PMID: 30049348. Epub 2018/07/28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Prince MJ, Lloyd-Sherlock P, Guerra M, Huang Y, Sosa AL, Uwakwe R, et al. The economic status of older people’s households in urban and rural settings in Peru, Mexico and China: a 10/66 INDEP study cross-sectional survey. SpringerPlus. 2016;5(1):258. PubMed PMID: 27006867; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4775717. Epub 2016/03/24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. van Hees SGM, O’Fallon T, Hofker M, Dekker M, Polack S, Banks LM, et al. Leaving no one behind? Social inclusion of health insurance in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):134. PubMed PMID: 31462303; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6714392. Epub 2019/08/30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Albanese E, Liu Z, Acosta D, Guerra M, Huang Y, Jacob KS, et al. Equity in the delivery of community healthcare to older people: findings from 10/66 Dementia Research Group cross-sectional surveys in Latin America, China, India and Nigeria. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):153. PubMed PMID: 21711546; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3146820. Epub 2011/06/30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hernández-Vásquez A, Rojas-Roque C, Santero M, Prado-Galbarro FJ, Rosselli D. Gasto de bolsillo en salud en adultos mayores peruanos: análisis de la Encuesta Nacional de Hogares sobre Condiciones de Vida y Pobreza 2017. Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica. 2018;35(3):390–9. PubMed PMID: 30517498. Epub 2018/12/06.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Owolabi M, Olowoyo P, Miranda JJ, Akinyemi R, Feng W, Yaria J, et al. Gaps in Hypertension Guidelines in Low- and Middle-Income Versus High-Income Countries. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex : 1979). 2016;68(6):1328–37. PubMed PMID: 27698059; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5159303. Epub 2016/10/05.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Owolabi MO, Yaria JO, Daivadanam M, Makanjuola AI, Parker G, Oldenburg B, et al. Gaps in Guidelines for the Management of Diabetes in Low- and Middle-Income Versus High-Income Countries—A Systematic Review. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(5):1097–105. PubMed PMID: 29678866; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5911785. Epub 2018/04/22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Bergland A, Jørgensen L, Emaus N, Strand BH. Mobility as a predictor of all-cause mortality in older men and women: 11.8 year follow-up in the Tromsø study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):22. PubMed PMID: 28068995; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5223479. Epub 2017/01/11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Chua KY, Lim WS, Lin X, Yuan JM, Koh W-P. Handgrip strength and timed up-and-go (TUG) test are predictors of short-term mortality among elderly in a population-based cohort in Singapore. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24(4):371–8. PubMed PMID: 32242204. Epub 2020/04/04.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Son KY, Shin DW, Lee JE, Kim SH, Yun JM, Cho B. Association of timed up and go test outcomes with future incidence of cardiovascular disease and mortality in adults aged 66 years: Korean national representative longitudinal study over 5.7 years. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):111. PubMed PMID: 32192437; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7081542. Epub 2020/03/21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. At J, Bryce R, Prina M, Acosta D, Ferri CP, Guerra M, et al. Frailty and the prediction of dependence and mortality in low- and middle-income countries: a 10/66 population-based cohort study. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):138.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Gutierrez-Robledo LM. Looking at the future of geriatric Care in Developing Countries. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Med Sci. 2002;57(3):M162–M7. PubMed PMID: 11867652. Epub 2002/02/28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. PubMed PMID: 17941715; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2020496. Epub 2007/10/19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Ministerio de Salud del Peru. Estadística Poblacional 2021;!/vizhome/Poblacionestimada/INICIO?publish=yes. Accessed 03 Apr 2021.

  34. Rodríguez G, Burga-Cisneros D, Cipriano G, Ortiz PJ, Tello T, Casas P, et al. Factores asociados a velocidad de marcha lenta en adultos mayores de un distrito en Lima, Perú. Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica. 2017;34(4):619–26. PubMed PMID: 29364417. Epub 2018/01/25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients†. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23(10):433–41. PubMed PMID: 1159263. Epub 1975/10/01.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, Lum O, Huang V, Adey M, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res. 1982;17(1):37–49. PubMed PMID: 7183759. Epub 1982/01/01.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cid-Ruzafa J, Damián-Moreno J. Valoración de la discapacidad física: el indice de Barthel. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 1997;71:127–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cabrera González D, Menéndez Caicoya A, Fernández Sánchez A, Acebal García V, García González JV, Díaz Palacios E, et al. Evaluación de la fiabilidad y validez de una escala de valoración social en el anciano. Aten Primaria. 1999;23(7):434–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Guigoz Y, Vellas B, Garry PJ. Assessing the nutritional status of the elderly: the Mini nutritional assessment as part of the geriatric evaluation. Nutr Rev. 2009;54(1):S59–65. PubMed PMID: 8919685. Epub 1996/01/01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Good M-JD, et al. The family APGAR index: a study of construct validity. J Fam Pract. 1979;8(3):577–82.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gálvez-Cano M, Chávez-Jimeno H, Aliaga-Diaz E. Usefulness of the comprehensive geriatric assessment for evaluating the health of older adults. Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica. 2016;33(2):321–7 Epub 2016/09/24. PubMed PMID: 27656933.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fonseca Alves DJ, Bartholomeu-Neto J, Júnior ER, Ribeiro Zarricueta BS, Nóbrega OT, Córdova C. Walking speed, risk factors, and cardiovascular events in older adults—systematic review. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(11):3235–44. PubMed PMID: 29065080. Epub 2017/10/25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Viccaro LJ, Perera S, Studenski SA. Is Timed Up and Go Better Than Gait Speed in Predicting Health, Function, and Falls in Older Adults? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(5):887–92. PubMed PMID: 21410448; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3522463. Epub 2011/03/18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Ferrucci L, Bandinelli S, Benvenuti E, Di Iorio A, Macchi C, Harris TB, et al. Subsystems contributing to the decline in ability to walk: bridging the gap between epidemiology and geriatric practice in the InCHIANTI study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(12):1618–25. PubMed PMID: 11129752. Epub 2000/12/29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bohannon RW. Reference Values for the Timed Up and Go Test. J Geriatric Phys Ther (2001). 2006;29(2):64–8. PubMed PMID: 16914068. Epub 2006/08/18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Studenski S. Bradypedia: is gait speed ready for clinical use? J Nutr Health Aging. 2010;13(10):878–80. PubMed PMID: 19924347. Epub 2009/11/20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. De Buyser SL, Petrovic M, Taes YE, Toye KRC, Kaufman J-M, Goemaere S. Physical function measurements predict mortality in ambulatory older men. Eur J Clin Investig. 2013;43(4):379–86. PubMed PMID: 23398295. Epub 2013/02/13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wang H, Naghavi M, Allen C, Barber RM, Bhutta ZA, Carter A, et al. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1459–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mohamed O, Appling H. Clinical assessment of gait. In: Chui KK, Jorge MM, Yen S-C, Lusardi MM, editors. Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier; 2020. p. 102–43.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Jung H-W, Kim S, Jang I-Y, Shin DW, Lee JE, Won CW. Screening Value of Timed Up and Go Test for Frailty and Low Physical Performance in Korean Older Population: The Korean Frailty and Aging Cohort Study (KFACS). Ann Geriatric Med Res. 2020;24(4):259–66. PubMed PMID: 33296961; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7781966. Epub 2020/12/10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Veronese N, Stubbs B, Volpato S, Zuliani G, Maggi S, Cesari M, et al. Association Between Gait Speed With Mortality, Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(11):981–8. e7. Epub 2018/07/30. PubMed PMID: 30056008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhao W, Ukawa S, Tsushita K, Kawamura T, Wakai K, Ando M, et al. Association of gait speed with mortality among the Japanese elderly in the new integrated suburban seniority investigation project: a prospective cohort study. Age Ageing. 2014;44(1):153–7. PubMed PMID: 25236846. Epub 2014/09/23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Galassi A, Reynolds K, He J. Metabolic syndrome and risk of cardiovascular disease: a Meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2006;119(10):812–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors are grateful to all the geriatricians of the Gerontology Institute of the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, who perform the geriatric assessment and collect data for this research.


RMC-L is supported by a Wellcome Trust International Training Fellowship (214185/Z/18/Z).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors designed the study. GDC-G and PJO performed the data collection. EJA and RMC-L analysed the data. All authors drafted the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro J. Ortiz.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participants in the original cohort study gave informed consent and the study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee for Humans at Cayetano Heredia University in Lima, Peru (Reference number: 207–06-20). All methods in the study were performed in accordance with guidelines and regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

ICD-10 codes for Non-communicable disease and Infectious diseases or Accident cause of death.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ascencio, E.J., Cieza-Gómez, G.D., Carrillo-Larco, R.M. et al. Timed up and go test predicts mortality in older adults in Peru: a population-based cohort study. BMC Geriatr 22, 61 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: