ArticleBJPsych open2025
Assessing a clinical vital sign in severe mental illness: validation study of the 5 sit-to-stand test for monitoring muscle strength - The PsychiActive Project.
Article in BJPsych open, 2025. 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.
- Criterion Validity of the 30-Second Chair Stand Test for Lower-Limb Muscle Strength in Adults With Severe Mental Disorders: The PsychiActive Project.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026Article
- Cycle Metrics and Strategy Detection for Automated Chair Sit-to-Stand Test Analysis Employing a Single Smartphone.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Prevalence and associated factors of sarcopenia risk and possible sarcopenia among older homeless adults in a home for destitute, Thailand: A cross-sectional study.Belitung nursing journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn individuals with severe mental illness (SMI), low muscle strength heightens the risk of mortality and chronic disease development. Routine muscle strength assessments could identify vulnerabilities, thereby reducing the growing burden associated with SMI. However, integration into clinical settings faces obstacles because of limited resources and inadequate healthcare staff training. The 5 sit-to-stand (5-STS) test offers an alternative for measuring muscle strength compared with more complex or demanding tests. Nevertheless, its validity in individuals with SMI remains unexplored.
aimsThis study aimed to analyse the criterion validity of the 5-STS test in SMI, considering potential age, gender and body mass index influences.
methodIn a cross-sectional study following the 'STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology' (STROBE) guidelines, 82 adults with SMI (aged 18-65, 24 women) were assessed. Participants underwent both the 5-STS test and the isometric knee extension strength (KES) test.
resultsAnalysis revealed a significant moderate correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient (-0.58 for both) for all participants, indicating that the measures are valid and assess related aspects of the same construct. Strong agreement was observed in women and the older age groups. The 5-STS test demonstrated accuracy, with a standard error of estimate lower than the within-subject variability on the KES test. Bland-Altman plots showed limits of agreement values of -3.39 and 3.52 for the entire sample, and heteroscedasticity analyses indicated consistent differences between the 5-STS and KES tests across all groups analysed, except in the women's group.
conclusionsThe 5-STS test seems to be a valid test for assessing muscle strength in individuals with SMI, supporting its usefulness for routine assessment in clinical settings, facilitating detection and intervention in critical situations.
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.