ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of two popular transducers to measure sit-to-stand power in older adults.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Technologies and Biomarkers for Locomotor Capacity Assessment in Older Adults: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the Test-Retest Reliability and Measurement Error of a Sit-Stand-Power Test in Individuals Treated for Cancer.Integrative cancer therapiesTrial
- The STS test and its correlation with common clinical indicators for an Argentinian population sample.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Linear Transducer "ADR Encoder" for Measuring Power and Speed of the Sit-to-Stand Tests in Older Adults.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Agreement and Associations with Physical Function Between Equation- and Linear Position Transducer-Estimated Sit-to-Stand Muscle Power in Aging Adults.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Tendo Unit (TU) and GymAware (GA) are the two most frequently used linear transducers for assessing muscle power in older adults via the sit-to-stand (STS) test. Unlike TU, GA incorporates a sensor mechanism to correct for non-vertical movements, which may lead to systematic differences between devices. The aim of this study therefore was to compare GA to TU for measuring STS power in community-dwelling older adults. Community-dwelling adults (n = 51, aged ≥65 years, 61% female) completed a single chair stand, with peak power measured simultaneously using GA and TU. Participants also completed the pneumatic leg press, 8-Foot Up and Go (TUG) test, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and self-reported measures of physical function. Intraclass correlations (ICC) were used to assess agreement, and Pearson's correlations were used to assess correlations. The study protocol was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework. In alignment with our pre-registered hypothesis, peak power demonstrated an ICC of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.96). For secondary aims, both transducers showed a correlation greater than 0.8 compared to pneumatic leg press power. For physical performance outcomes, both TU and GA showed similar correlations, as hypothesized: SPPB (r = 0.29 for TU vs. 0.33 for GA), Chair Stands (r = -0.41 vs. -0.38), TUG Fast (r = -0.53 vs. -0.52), mobility questionnaire (r = 0.52 vs. 0.52) and physical function questionnaire (r = 0.44 vs. 0.43). GA and TU peak power showed a high degree of agreement and similar correlations with physical and self-reported performance measures, suggesting that both methods can be used for assessing STS power in older adults.
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.