ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2025
Sit to stand is a new reliable method for assessing strength, power, and velocity exercise in adult pediatric cancer survivors.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 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.
- Multimodal Exercise and Nutritional Interventions in Pediatric Cancer: Effects on Physical Function, Body Composition, and Metabolic Health-A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to analyze the intra-set reliability of 5 sit-to-stand (5-STS) exercises with a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) and to determine and compare the load-velocity (L-V) profile in the STS exercise in adult pediatric cancer survivors by sex, age, body mass index, and type and treatment of cancer.
methodA total of 47 participants performed the 5-STS test with 5% and 20% body weight (BW) to assess intrasession reliability and analyze differences in L-V profiles by sex, age, BMI, and type and treatment of cancer.
resultsVery high and extremely high relative reliability was found for both the 5% STS (ICC = 0.80-0.94) and the 20% STS (ICC = 0.87-0.95) relate to average and peak force, power, and velocity. Regarding L-V profiles, significant differences were only found in relation to sex for the velocity-axis intercept and area under the line (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe 5-STS test with a load of 5% and 20% of BW using a FEMD is a reliable method for assessing strength, power, and velocity exercise in adult pediatric cancer survivors. There was a relation to sex for the variables of L-V profile. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Reliable assessments of muscular strength, like the 5-STS test using FEMD, offer a safer, less demanding alternative to maximal strength tests (e.g., 1RM), enabling precise intensity control and better-tailored rehabilitation programs.
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.