ArticleDigital health
Test-retest reliability and agreement of remote home-based functional capacity self-administered assessments in community-dwelling, socially isolated older adults.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Effects of home-based exercise with or without cognitive training on cognition and mobility in cardiac patients: A randomized clinical trial.GeroScience · 2025Trial
- From mouth to muscle: mechanistic and interventional perspectives on the tongue-coating microbiome in sarcopenia.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- The recent history and near future of digital health in the field of behavioral medicine: an update on progress from 2019 to 2024.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the test-retest reliability and agreement of home-based functional capacity self-administered assessments in socially isolated older adults. Methods: Fourteen community-dwelling older adults (eight females, 67.9 ± 7.7 years) volunteered for this study. Before testing, participants were screened online for eligibility and received instructional videos explaining test set-up and execution. Participants underwent the 30-second sit-to-standing test, gait speed tests at the usual pace, and timed-up-and-go tests administered 4 weeks apart. For the 30-second sit-to-standing protocol, participants were instructed to repeatedly sit and stand from a chair (with a height of ∼ 43 cm and without armrests) for 30 s, with the number of repetitions recorded. In the gait speed test protocol, participants were instructed to walk at their usual and comfortable pace, with the time taken recorded (seconds). In the timed-up-and-go, participants stood up from a chair, walked as fast as possible for 3 m, circled a marked point, and returned to the chair to sit down, completing the test, with the score recorded (seconds). A trained researcher conducted the scoring virtually via synchronous video. Results: 30-second sit-to-standing, gait speed test, and timed-up-and-go showed excellent mean coefficient of variation values (2.0-4.9), small standard error of measurement (0.08-1.27), excellent intraclass coefficient (0.97-0.99), very strong correlations (0.97-0.99) and good agreement between the two days of testing. Conclusion: Self-administered functional capacity tests performed by older adults at home were reliable with good agreement. Healthcare professionals and older adults should take advantage of simple remote self-administered assessments performed at home to evaluate older adults' health status.
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.