ArticleScientific reports2021
Self-reported (IFIS) versus measured physical fitness, and their associations to cardiometabolic risk factors in early pregnancy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability and validity of the International FItness Scale (IFIS): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Review
- Article
- Emotional Functioning in Long-Term Breast Cancer Survivors: A Cross-Sectional Study on Its Influence and Key Predictors.Cancers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Physical fitness is a strong marker of health, but objective fitness measurements are not always feasible. The International FItness Scale (IFIS) for self-reported fitness is a simple-to-use tool with demonstrated validity and reliability; however, validation in pregnancy needs to be confirmed. Also, its association with cardiometabolic health in pregnant women is unknown. Hence, we examined (1) the validity of the IFIS with objectively measured fitness, and (2) the associations of self-reported versus objectively measured cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and muscular strength with cardiometabolic risk factors in early pregnancy. Women (n = 303) from the HealthyMoms trial were measured at gestational week 14 for: CRF (6-min walk test); upper-body muscular strength (handgrip strength test); self-reported fitness (IFIS), body composition (air-displacement plethysmography); blood pressure and metabolic parameters (lipids, glucose, insulin). Higher self-reported fitness was associated with better measured fitness (ANOVA overall p < 0.01 for all fitness types), indicating the usefulness of the IFIS in pregnancy. Furthermore, higher self-reported overall fitness and CRF were associated with lower cardiometabolic risk scores (ANOVA p < 0.001), with similar results shown for measured CRF (ANOVA p < 0.001). The findings suggest that IFIS could be useful to stratify pregnant women in appropriate fitness levels on a population-based level where objective measurement is not possible.
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.