SynthesisBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Psychometric properties of the sit-to-stand test for patients with pulmonary hypertension: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary hypertension (PH) is defined as an increase in mean pulmonary arterial pressure, often accompanied by indicators such as dyspnea on exertion, exercise intolerance, and systemic muscle dysfunction. Various protocols exist that can indirectly assess these indicators through the sit-to-stand test (STST).
objectiveAssess the psychometric properties of different STST protocols in patients with PH.
methodsThis study is a systematic review. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, SciELO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases. The risk of bias was assessed using the COSMIN tool and the certainty of evidence using the modified Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) classification. Two investigators evaluated independently, and a third evaluator was consulted as needed.
resultsOut of a total of 7933 articles identified, only 5 articles met the criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Four psychometric properties were assessed across the five protocols used. The 1-STST protocol provided high-quality evidence for both convergent validity and responsiveness. The 30-STST protocol showed moderate-quality evidence for convergent validity and responsiveness, while the 5-STST also demonstrated moderate-quality evidence for responsiveness. The between-groups validity and reliability of the 30-STST protocol were considered to be low and very low, respectively.
conclusionDespite the limited number of studies, we can infer that the most commonly used protocol is the 1-STST, which has a high degree of convergent validity and responsiveness when compared to other assessment tools.
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.