Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2023
The effects of standardised versus individualised seat height on 1-minute sit-to-stand test performance in healthy individuals: a randomised crossover trial.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04772417 (The Effects of Standardized vs Individualized Seat Height on 1-minute Sit-to-stand Performance), which is not on this 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.
The Effects of Standardized vs Individualized Seat Height on 1-minute Sit-to-stand Performance
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Compared to total serum testosterone, calculated free testosterone has a stronger association with lean mass, muscle strength, power, and physical function in older men.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Assessment of Lower Limb Function and Muscle Strength in Sarcopenia: Insights from the Sit-to-Stand Test.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to (i) investigate differences in 1-minute sit-to-stand test (1MSTST) performance (i.e., the number of repetitions) between a standardised modality (i.e., starting from a conventional chair with 46 cm seat height) and an individualised modality (i.e., starting with a knee joint flexion angle of 90°), and to (ii) quantify the influence of tibia and femur length on 1MSTST performance.
methodsHealthy participants were recruited for this randomised crossover study, performing each 1MSTST modality twice in a randomised order. The primary outcome was the number of repetitions in the 1MSTST. Secondary endpoints were the acute responses in peripheral oxygen saturation, heart rate, and leg fatigue and dyspnoea. Additionally, we investigated correlations of performance with knee extensor strength in both modalities.
resultsThirty participants were recruited and completed the study. They achieved significantly less repetitions in the standardised 1MSTST compared to the individualised 1MSTST (B = - 12.1, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = - 14.8/- 9.4, p < 0.001). We found a significant effect of femur length on 1MSTST performance (B = - 1.6, 95% CI = - 2.6/- 0.7, p = 0.01), tibia length showed significant interaction with the 1MSTST modality (B = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.2/2.2, p = 0.03).
conclusionAn individualisation of the 1MSTST starting position to 90° knee flexion angle leads to more repetitions compared to the traditional starting position. The higher repetition count is explained by controlling for differences in tibia length. We recommend individualisation of the 1MSTST, enabling more valid comparisons across populations and study samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , NCT04772417. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: February 26, 2021.
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.