ArticlePloS one2018
A 3-minute test of cardiorespiratory fitness for use in primary care clinics.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Benefits of Cycling as a Form of Active Travel: A Pilot Empirical Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Cardiopulmonary Reactivity in Bulgarian National Taekwon-Do Team Athletes.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Modified Isoinertial-Based Ruffier Test in Healthy Individuals: A Feasibility Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2023Article
- Smartphone-Based VO2max Measurement With Heart Snapshot in Clinical and Real-world Settings With a Diverse Population: Validation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Cardiorespiratory Fitness as a Correlate of Cardiovascular, Anthropometric, and Physical Risk Factors: Using the Ruffier Test as a Template.Canadian respiratory journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Screening for unhealthy diet and exercise habits: The electronic health record and a healthier population.Preventive medicine reports · 2019Article
- Submaximal Exercise Testing in Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Settings (BEST Study).Frontiers in physiology · 2019Article
- Toward Quantifying the Psychopathology of Eating Disorders From the Autonomic Nervous System Perspective: A Methodological Approach.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is the only major risk factor that is not routinely assessed in the clinical setting, for preventive medicine. A valid and practical CRF test is needed for use in the clinics. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the validity of a 3-minute squat test to assess CRF in primary care.
methodsA cross-sectional study in which the participants performed both the Ruffier squat test and the Balke maximal treadmill test. The study was conducted in a clinical setting from September 2016 to March 2017. We recruited a convenient sample of 40 adults between 18 and 64 years from the general U.S. population. Participants completed 30 squats in 45 seconds, paced by a metronome. Heart rate was measured at rest (P1), immediately after the test (P2), one minute after the test (P3). [Formula: see text] was measured using the Balke maximal treadmill fitness test.
resultsOf the 40 participants, there were 18 men and 22 women. Mean age was 31.2 years (SD = 9.9). We found that the best [Formula: see text] predictors were HR features P1/height and (P2-P3)/age3. Our best-performing model using these two features predicted individuals' CRF levels with an adjusted R2 of 0.637, sensitivity of 0.79, and specificity of 0.56.
conclusionsThe study provided strong evidence for the validity of the squat test in the clinical setting. Further, the equation of our model along with [Formula: see text] normative tables provides an efficient and easy way to assess CRF in a primary care setting.
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.