Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38565082›Full record

ArticleGerontology2024

Reliability in Novel Field-Based Fitness Measurements and Postexercise Scores from a Physical Fitness Test Battery in Older Adults.

Manne Godhe, Gustaf Rönquist, Johnny Nilsson, Örjan Ekblom, Lillemor Nyberg, Gunnar Edman, Eva Andersson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gerontology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Manne GodheDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gustaf RönquistDepartment of Physical Activity and Health, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
Johnny NilssonDepartment of Physical Activity and Health, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
Örjan EkblomDepartment of Physical Activity and Health, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lillemor NybergDepartment of Medicine and School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Gunnar EdmanResearch and Development, Norrtälje Hospital, Tiohundra AB, Norrtälje, Sweden.
Eva AnderssonDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences · SEÖrebro University · SESödertälje Sjukhus · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPhysical fitness is strongly associated with daily physical function, health, and longevity in older adults. Field-based tests may provide a reasonable alternative compared to advanced laboratory testing. Separating postexercise test scores from reactivity measurements requires sufficient test-retest reliability. Postexercise test scores with reliability analyses of field-based fitness tests in older adults are lacking. The present study aimed to examine the test-retest reliability of some novel easily accommodated fitness test measurements and compare pretest scores with postexercise results in these tests along with other field-based fitness tests in older adults.

methodsTotally 1,407 community-dwelling older adults (69% female), x̄ = 71.5 ± 5.0 (65-84 years), performed twelve field-based fitness tests at pretest 1, pretest 2 and a posttest after an 8-week exercise period (twice weekly 1 h of combined strength and aerobic training). T tests, intra-class correlation, limits of agreement, standard error of measurement, and coefficient of variance were performed between pre-1 and pre-2 tests, and repeated measures ANOVA and partial eta squared effect size for postexercise differences for men and women in 5-year age groups ranging from 65 to 84 years.

resultsBetween pre-1 and pre-2 tests a significant difference was noted in some of the novel fitness test measurements but generally not, e.g., in isometric trunk flexion and step-up height on either leg among all sex and age groups. In most of these novel fitness test measurements, no significant differences occurred between the two pretests. Examples of results from the pre-2 test to the posttest were isometric trunk flexion 45° endurance and isometric trunk extension endurance improved significantly for both sexes in age groups 65-74 years. Women, but not men, improved the maximal step-up height for both legs in most age groups. The speed in the 50 sit-to-stand improved significantly for most age groups in both sexes. Six-min walk distance improved significantly for most age groups in women but among men only in 65-69 years. In the timed-up-and-go test, significant improvements were seen for all age groups in women and in men 70-79 years. No postexercise improvements were generally observed for grip strength or balance.

conclusionsIn most of the novel fitness test measures, no significant difference was noted between the two pretests in the assessed sex and age groups. Results after the 8-week exercise period varied between sex and age groups, with significant improvements in several of the twelve studied fitness tests. These findings may be valuable for future projects utilizing easily accommodated physical fitness tests in older adults.

Indexed as

Exercise TestPhysical FitnessAgedAged, 80 and overExerciseFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansIndependent LivingMaleReproducibility of ResultsCardiorespiratory fitnessElderlyExerciseMotor fitnessPhysiological capacityStrengthTest-retest

Identifiers

PMID38565082
PMCPMC11177894
OpenAlexW4393577711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.