ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Relevance of the Get Active Questionnaire for Pre-Participation Exercise Screening in the General Population in a Tropical Environment.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Removing barriers to physical activity for people with long-term conditions: co-creating patient-centred guidance through a multistakeholder consensus approach.British journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Effects of 5-Minute Light-Intensity Physical Activity Breaks (Sit-Cycling and Stand-Twisting) on Cognitive Function, Sleepiness, and Back Pain in Physically Inactive University Students: Protocol for a Mixed-Design Laboratory Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- The Singapore Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire 2021 (SPARQ 2021)-Results of Public Feedback.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Get Active Questionnaire (GAQ), developed by the Canadian Society for Exercise Professionals (CSEP), was recently recommended for pre-participation screening of the general population in Singapore before increasing their exercise levels. This literature review examines the evidence behind the GAQ and its relevance to our tropical environment. Searches were carried out via Pubmed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Resources referenced by the CSEPs were hand searched. The CSEP was also contacted for further information. The evidence behind each GAQ question was compared to international literature and guidelines, where applicable. Out of 273 studies, 49 were suitable for analysis. Two GAQ studies commissioned by the CSEP showed a high negative predictive value but high false negative rate. Of the nine GAQ questions, those on dizziness, joint pains and chronic diseases appear to be justified. Those on heart disease/stroke, hypertension, breathlessness and concussion require modification. The one on syncope can be amalgamated into the dizziness question. The remaining question may be deleted. No long-term studies were available to validate the use of the GAQ. Heat disorders were not considered in the GAQ. Modification of the GAQ, including the inclusion of environmental factors, may make it more suitable for the general population and should be considered.
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.