Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26987118›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Criterion-Related Validity of the Distance- and Time-Based Walk/Run Field Tests for Estimating Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Daniel Mayorga-Vega, Raúl Bocanegra-Parrilla, Martha Ornelas, Jesús Viciana

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
12.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 161 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Promotion of physical activity during weight loss maintenance: A randomized controlled trial.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2021
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Reference values for maximum oxygen consumption (VOBMJ open respiratory research · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Cooper's 12 Minute Run Systematically Underestimates VOInternational journal of exercise science · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The 6-minute Run Test: Validation and Reference Equations for Adults.International journal of sports medicine · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel Mayorga-VegaDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Raúl Bocanegra-ParrillaDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Martha OrnelasFaculty of Sciences of Physical Culture, Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico.
Jesús VicianaDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Universidad de Granada · ESAutonomous University of Chihuahua · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe main purpose of the present meta-analysis was to examine the criterion-related validity of the distance- and time-based walk/run tests for estimating cardiorespiratory fitness among apparently healthy children and adults. MATERIALS AND

methodsRelevant studies were searched from seven electronic bibliographic databases up to August 2015 and through other sources. The Hunter-Schmidt's psychometric meta-analysis approach was conducted to estimate the population criterion-related validity of the following walk/run tests: 5,000 m, 3 miles, 2 miles, 3,000 m, 1.5 miles, 1 mile, 1,000 m, ½ mile, 600 m, 600 yd, ¼ mile, 15 min, 12 min, 9 min, and 6 min.

resultsFrom the 123 included studies, a total of 200 correlation values were analyzed. The overall results showed that the criterion-related validity of the walk/run tests for estimating maximum oxygen uptake ranged from low to moderate (rp = 0.42-0.79), with the 1.5 mile (rp = 0.79, 0.73-0.85) and 12 min walk/run tests (rp = 0.78, 0.72-0.83) having the higher criterion-related validity for distance- and time-based field tests, respectively. The present meta-analysis also showed that sex, age and maximum oxygen uptake level do not seem to affect the criterion-related validity of the walk/run tests.

conclusionsWhen the evaluation of an individual's maximum oxygen uptake attained during a laboratory test is not feasible, the 1.5 mile and 12 min walk/run tests represent useful alternatives for estimating cardiorespiratory fitness. As in the assessment with any physical fitness field test, evaluators must be aware that the performance score of the walk/run field tests is simply an estimation and not a direct measure of cardiorespiratory fitness.

Indexed as

Health StatusAdultChildExercise TestHumansOxygen ConsumptionPhysical FitnessRunningWalking

Identifiers

PMID26987118
PMCPMC4795745
OpenAlexW2298039669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.