Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34442050›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

Criterion-Related Validity of Field-Based Fitness Tests in Adults: A Systematic Review.

Jose Castro-Piñero, Nuria Marin-Jimenez, Jorge R Fernandez-Santos, Fatima Martin-Acosta, Victor Segura-Jimenez, Rocio Izquierdo-Gomez, Jonatan R Ruiz, Magdalena Cuenca-Garcia

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The 6-minute Run Test: Validation and Reference Equations for Adults.International journal of sports medicine · 2024
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jose Castro-PiñeroGALENO Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cádiz, Avenida República Saharaui s/n, Puerto Real, 11519 Cádiz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7353-0382
Nuria Marin-JimenezGALENO Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cádiz, Avenida República Saharaui s/n, Puerto Real, 11519 Cádiz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0687-7554
Jorge R Fernandez-SantosGALENO Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cádiz, Avenida República Saharaui s/n, Puerto Real, 11519 Cádiz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5047-2976
Fatima Martin-AcostaGALENO Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cádiz, Avenida República Saharaui s/n, Puerto Real, 11519 Cádiz, Spain.
Victor Segura-JimenezGALENO Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cádiz, Avenida República Saharaui s/n, Puerto Real, 11519 Cádiz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8655-9857
Rocio Izquierdo-GomezGALENO Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cádiz, Avenida República Saharaui s/n, Puerto Real, 11519 Cádiz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8081-5132
Jonatan R RuizPROmoting FITness and Health through Physical Activity Research Group (PROFITH), Sport and Health University Research Institute (iMUDS), Department of Physical and Sports Education, School of Sports Science, University of Granada, 18007 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7548-7138
Magdalena Cuenca-GarciaGALENO Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cádiz, Avenida República Saharaui s/n, Puerto Real, 11519 Cádiz, Spain.
Universidad de Cádiz · ESUniversidad de Granada · ES

Funding

This project was supported by Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness in the 2017 call for R&D Projects of the State Program for Research, Development and Innovation Oriented to the Challenges of the Company; National Plan for Scientific and Tec (PPIT-FPI19).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We comprehensively assessed the criterion-related validity of existing field-based fitness tests used to indicate adult health (19-64 years, with no known pathologies). The medical electronic databases MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Web of Science (all databases) were screened for studies published up to July 2020. Each original study's methodological quality was classified as high, low and very low, according to the number of participants, the description of the study population, statistical analysis and systematic reviews which were appraised via the AMSTAR rating scale. Three evidence levels were constructed (strong, moderate and limited evidence) according to the number of studies and the consistency of the findings. We identified 101 original studies (50 of high quality) and five systematic reviews examining the criterion-related validity of field-based fitness tests in adults. Strong evidence indicated that the 20 m shuttle run, 1.5-mile, 12 min run/walk, YMCA step, 2 km walk and 6 min walk test are valid for estimating cardiorespiratory fitness; the handgrip strength test is valid for assessing hand maximal isometric strength; and the Biering-Sørensen test to evaluate the endurance strength of hip and back muscles; however, the sit-and reach test, and its different versions, and the toe-to-touch test are not valid for assessing hamstring and lower back flexibility. We found moderate evidence supporting that the 20 m square shuttle run test is a valid test for estimating cardiorespiratory fitness. Other field-based fitness tests presented limited evidence, mainly due to few studies. We developed an evidence-based proposal of the most valid field-based fitness tests in healthy adults aged 19-64 years old.

Indexed as

adulthoodcardiorespiratory fitnessfitness testingmotor fitness and flexibilitymuscular strengthvalidation

Identifiers

PMID34442050
PMCPMC8397016
OpenAlexW3193700352

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.