ArticlePloS one2015
Multivariate statistical assessment of predictors of firefighters' muscular and aerobic work capacity.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors, Musculoskeletal Health, and Physical Fitness on Occupational Performance in Firefighters-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Autologous Doping with Cryopreserved Red Blood Cells - Effects on Physical Performance and Detection by Multivariate Statistics.PloS one · 2016Trial
- Physiological characteristics predictive of passing military physical employment standard tasks for ground close combat occupations in men and women.European journal of sport science · 2024Article
- Predicting competitive alpine skiing performance by multivariable statistics-the need for individual profiling.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- The impact of positive-pressure breathing apparatus on muscle fatigue of volunteer firefighter.PloS one · 2024Article
- Body Composition Is Related to Maximal Effort Treadmill Test Time in Firefighters.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Predicting Firefighters' Physical Ability Test Scores from Anaerobic Fitness Parameters & Mental Toughness Levels.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Differences in Stronger Versus Weaker Firefighters in Selected Measures of Power.International journal of exercise science · 2022Article
- Lack of Predictive Power in Commonly Used Tests for Performance in Alpine Skiing.Sports medicine international open · 2021Article
- Aerobic Variables for Prediction of Alpine Skiing Performance - A Novel Approach.Sports medicine international open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical capacity has previously been deemed important for firefighters physical work capacity, and aerobic fitness, muscular strength, and muscular endurance are the most frequently investigated parameters of importance. Traditionally, bivariate and multivariate linear regression statistics have been used to study relationships between physical capacities and work capacities among firefighters. An alternative way to handle datasets consisting of numerous correlated variables is to use multivariate projection analyses, such as Orthogonal Projection to Latent Structures. The first aim of the present study was to evaluate the prediction and predictive power of field and laboratory tests, respectively, on firefighters' physical work capacity on selected work tasks. Also, to study if valid predictions could be achieved without anthropometric data. The second aim was to externally validate selected models. The third aim was to validate selected models on firefighters' and on civilians'. A total of 38 (26 men and 12 women) + 90 (38 men and 52 women) subjects were included in the models and the external validation, respectively. The best prediction (R2) and predictive power (Q2) of Stairs, Pulling, Demolition, Terrain, and Rescue work capacities included field tests (R2 = 0.73 to 0.84, Q2 = 0.68 to 0.82). The best external validation was for Stairs work capacity (R2 = 0.80) and worst for Demolition work capacity (R2 = 0.40). In conclusion, field and laboratory tests could equally well predict physical work capacities for firefighting work tasks, and models excluding anthropometric data were valid. The predictive power was satisfactory for all included work tasks except Demolition.
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.