SynthesisJournal of rehabilitation medicine2022
Measurement Properties of Aerobic Capacity Measures in Neuromuscular Diseases: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cardiopulmonary exercise testing as an integrative approach to explore physiological limitations in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the measurement properties of aerobic capacity measures in neuromuscular diseases. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, SportDiscus and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science were systematically searched from inception until 30 June 2021. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent researchers. Studies were included if they evaluated measurement properties of aerobic capacity measures in adults with neuromuscular diseases. Risk of bias was assessed using the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Results were pooled and the quality of the evidence was determined using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine studies including 187 participants were included in this review. Low quality of evidence was found for sufficient content validity of peak oxygen consumption through maximal exercise testing. Criterion validity of 4 out of 7 different measures to predict peak oxygen consumption was sufficient; however, quality of evidence was low or very low for all measures. No studies were found evaluating reliability or responsiveness.
conclusionThere was a lack of high-quality studies with sufficiently large sample sizes that evaluated the measurement properties of aerobic capacity measures in neuromuscular diseases.
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.