ArticleJournal of aging and physical activity2013
Validity of the step test for exercise prescription: no extension to a larger age range.
Article in Journal of aging and physical activity, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do assessments of cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness influence subsequent reported physical activity? A randomized controlled trial.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Evaluating Variables as Unbiased Proxies for Other Measures: Assessing the Step Test Exercise Prescription as a Proxy for the Maximal, High-intensity Peak Oxygen Consumption in Older Adults.International journal of statistics and probability · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of a submaximal exercise test, the Step Test Exercise Prescription (STEP), in a broad age range and in individuals in the earliest stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Individuals (n = 102) underwent treadmill-based maximal exercise testing and a STEP. The STEP failed to predict peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak), and was a biased estimate of VO2peak (p < .0001). Only 43% of subjects' STEP results were within 3.5 ml · kg-1 · min-1 of VO2peak. When categorized into fitness levels these 2 measures demonstrated moderate agreement (kappa = .59). The validity of the STEP was not supported in our participants, including those with AD. The STEP may not be appropriate in the clinic as a basis for exercise recommendations in these groups, although it may continue to have utility in classifying fitness in research or community health screenings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.