ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Predictive Validity of Motor Fitness and Flexibility Tests in Adults and Older Adults: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Traditional Chinese exercises on muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical function in older adults with sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Feasibility and Safety of Field-Based Physical Fitness Tests: A Systematic Review.Sports medicine - open · 2025Pooled it
- Physical Fitness and Device-Based Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity and Risk of Long-Term Sickness Absence-A Prospective Cohort Study With 8-Year Follow-Up.European journal of sport science · 2026Article
- Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Arabic Version of the Motor Fitness Scale in Saudi Older Adults: A Cross-Cultural Validation Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Relationships between physical activity dimensions and frailty incidence and progression in middle-aged and older adults: A 7-year cohort study.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
- Validity of the German version of the Stay Independent Questionnaire applied by telephone interview: A diagnostic accuracy study.PloS one · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Motor fitness and flexibility have been linked to several health issues. We aimed to investigate the predictive validity of motor fitness and flexibility tests in relation to health outcomes in adults and older adults. Web of Science and PubMed databases were screened for studies published from inception to November 2020. Two authors systematically searched, evaluated, and extracted data from identified original studies and systematic reviews/meta-analysis. Three levels of evidence were constructed: strong, moderate, and limited/inconclusive evidence. In total, 1182 studies were identified, and 70 studies and 6 systematic reviews/meta-analysis were summarized. Strong evidence indicated that (i) slower gait speed predicts falls and institutionalization/hospitalization in adults over 60 years old, cognitive decline/impairment over 55 years old, mobility disability over 50 years old, disability in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) over 54 years old, cardiovascular disease risk over 45 years old, and all-cause mortality over 35 years old; (ii) impaired balance predicts falls and disability in IADL/mobility disability in adults over 40 years old and all-cause mortality over 53 years old; (iii) worse timed up&go test (TUG) predicts falls and fear of falling over 40 years old. Evidence supports that slower gait speed, impaired balance, and worse TUG performance are significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes in adults.
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.