ArticleERJ open research2022
The impact of seat height on 1-min sit-to-stand test performance in COPD: a randomised crossover trial.
Article in ERJ open research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of standardised versus individualised seat height on 1-minute sit-to-stand test performance in healthy individuals: a randomised crossover trial.European journal of applied physiology · 2023Trial
- Why is it worth carefully assessing the way hemiplegic sitting and standing up?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study question: Is there a difference in the number of repetitions in the 1-minute sit-to-stand (1MSTS) test using an individually adapted seat height to 90° knee flexion (1MSTS Methods: We conducted a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised crossover trial in people with COPD between August 2020 and March 2021 at a specialised rehabilitation clinic in Switzerland. After a learning 1MSTS test, all participants performed two 1MSTS tests in random order on consecutive days. Participants were blinded, as they did not receive detailed information on the testing protocols. Results: 49 individuals with COPD (47% female) participated. In a regression model adjusted for sequence period and subject, 1MSTS test performance was lower on 1MSTS Conclusion: Although we observed a statistically significant difference between 1MSTS
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.