Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32102379›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Reliability of 30-s Chair Stand Test with and without Cognitive Task in People with Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Sabina Barrios-Fernández, Jorge Pérez-Gómez, María Del Carmen Galán-Arroyo, Jairo Señorán-Rivera, Rubén Martín-Carmona, María Mendoza-Muñoz, Miguel Ángel García-Gordillo, Francisco Javier Domínguez-Muñoz, José Carmelo Adsuar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Sabina Barrios-FernándezFaculty of Nursing and Occupational Therapy, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7128-5451
Jorge Pérez-GómezFaculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4054-9132
María Del Carmen Galán-ArroyoExercise Looks after You Program (ELAY), 10003 Cáceres, Spain.
Jairo Señorán-RiveraExercise Looks after You Program (ELAY), 10003 Cáceres, Spain.
Rubén Martín-CarmonaExercise Looks after You Program (ELAY), 10003 Cáceres, Spain.
María Mendoza-MuñozFaculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain.
Miguel Ángel García-GordilloFacultad de Administración y Negocios, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, sede Talca 3467987, Chile.
Francisco Javier Domínguez-MuñozFaculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5388-2009
José Carmelo AdsuarFaculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7203-3168

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReliability refers to the precision of an assessment, so it is a critical topic to take the right decisions related to health management. People usually perform several tasks at the same time in their daily life. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability of the 30-s chair stand test in people with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) with test-retest, with and without dual-task (motor + cognitive task).

methodsTwenty-six subjects with T2DM and 30 subjects without T2DM performed the 30-s Chair Stand Test (30sCST) in which they must sit and stand as many times as possible in 30 s. They performed the test in the usual way (30sCST) and also with an additional cognitive task (30sCST-DT). A retest was conducted 7-14 days later.

resultsRelative reliability was excellent in both groups (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.9). In 30sCST-DT, relative reliability was high in the T2DM group (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.7) and excellent in subjects without T2DM (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.9).

conclusionsThe 30sCST and the 30sCST-DT tests are reliable tools for people with T2DM to measure changes after an intervention. The smallest real difference was 15% and 20% upper in the T2DM group in the 30sCST and 30sCST-DT tests, respectively.

Indexed as

CognitionDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Exercise TestFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of Resultsdual-taskintraclass correlation coefficientphysical functionstandard error of measurement

Identifiers

PMID32102379
PMCPMC7068475

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.