SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
Reliability and Validity of Laboratory and Field Cardiorespiratory Exercise Tests for Wheelchair Users: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundcardiorespiratory fitness is one of the most important components of physical fitness. In this paper, we set out to identify cardiopulmonary tests evaluated for measurement properties in wheelchair users and determine which are reliable and valid for this population.
methodsArticles were collected from PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. The initial search was conducted in October 2022 and updated in July 2023 for recent publications. From 1257 screened studies, 42 met the criteria: (a) participants were wheelchair users, (b) tests measured cardiorespiratory fitness, (c) test reliability or validity was reported, (d) articles were original, and (e) full text was in English. Two independent researchers extracted participant details (number, gender, age, disability) and test information, with a third researcher resolving disagreements. Statistical analyses of test reliability and validity were documented.
resultsMethodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Evidence levels for reliability and validity were established. Moderate evidence was found for reliability in one field test, and for validity in two lab and two field tests.
conclusionsWhile most tests show good reliability and validity, sample sizes are small, limiting conclusions. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence and identify the most suitable tests for wheelchair users. Researchers are encouraged to replicate validation studies to support future testing.
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.