SynthesisEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Reliability of questionnaire The International Fitness Scale: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability and validity of the International FItness Scale (IFIS): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Exploring Predictors of Self-Perceived Cardiorespiratory Fitness ≥ 5 Years Beyond Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prevalence, correlates, and health associations of 24-hour movement behaviours in Slovenian adults: a protocol for a longitudinal population-based study.Journal of activity, sedentary and sleep behaviors · 2025Article
- Reliability and validity of the Healthy Fitness Measurement Scale Version 1.0 (HFMS V1.0) in Chinese people.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Self-reported (IFIS) versus measured physical fitness, and their associations to cardiometabolic risk factors in early pregnancy.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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
Objective To perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to investigate the reliability of The International Fitness Scale questionnaire for assessing overall physical fitness and related components. Methods PubMed®, BIREME, SciELO, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, LILACS and Cochrane databases were searched using the following search terms: "The International Fitness Scale", "International Fitness Scale" and "IFIS". Article selection and data extraction were performed according to the following eligibility criteria: reliability and/or validity study of the measure tools of The International Fitness Scale; adoption of the The International Fitness Scale as a reference criterion (gold standard) and being an original article. Quality of the study was considered based on Assessment of Reliability Studies. Data analysis used Kappa coefficient of agreement, Cochran and the Higgins I2 test. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the withdrawal model. Results A total of seven articles were included in the analysis. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.40 to 0.99, with most studies achieving values ≥0.60, indicative of moderate to substantial reliability. Conclusion In spite of appropriate test-retest scores attributed to most reliability indicators, heterogeneity among the studies remained high. Therefore, further studies with low risk of bias are needed to support the reliability of the self-reported The International Fitness Scale.
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.