Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40875134›Full record

ArticleGeroScience2026

Reference values for the five-times-sit-to-stand test: a pooled analysis including 45,470 participants from 14 countries.

Jozo Grgic, Brad J Schoenfeld, Andrea B Maier, Zeljko Pedisic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GeroScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jozo GrgicNUS Academy for Healthy Longevity, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore, 117456, Singapore.
Brad J SchoenfeldDepartment of Exercise Science and Recreation, Applied Muscle Development Lab, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA.
Andrea B MaierNUS Academy for Healthy Longevity, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore, 117456, Singapore.
Zeljko PedisicSchool of Public Health, Li Ka Shing, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. pedisic@hku.hk.

Funding

HRS Yrs29-34: Y33 SSA CoFundingU01AG009740 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Jessica Faul, KENNETH M LANGA · 1990 to 2026
$555.8M
Understanding and Improving Healthcare Decision-Making and Outcomes for People Living with Alzheimer's Disease and Related DementiasP01AG005842 · NIA · NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH · PI KOSALI ILAYPERUMA SIMON · 1986 to 2026
$56.5M
WEALTH DISPARITIES AMONG MATURE AND OLDER ADULTSP01AG008291 · NIA · RAND CORPORATION · PI HURD, MICHAEL D · 1989 to 2018
$19.4M
RAND CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF AGINGP30AG012815 · NIA · RAND CORPORATION · PI HURD, MICHAEL D · 1999 to 2020
$13.7M
Bio-medical and socio-economic precursors of cognitive decline in SHARER01AG056329 · NIA · MAX PLANCK INST/SOCIAL LAW/SOCIAL POLICY · PI BOERSCH-SUPAN, AXEL H · 2017 to 2021
$4.1M
Understanding Cross-National Health Differences at Older Ages and Their CausesR01AG063944 · NIA · NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH · PI BOERSCH-SUPAN, AXEL H, CRIMMINS, EILEEN M · 2019 to 2024
$3.2M
Enhancing the Comparability of SHARE with HRS and ELSAR01AG052527 · NIA · MAX PLANCK INST/SOCIAL LAW/SOCIAL POLICY · PI BOERSCH-SUPAN, AXEL H · 2016 to 2020
$2.1M
DEVELOPING AN ISRAELI VERSION OF THE HRS/SHARE PROJECTR21AG025169 · NIA · HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM · PI LITWIN, HOWARD · 2004 to 2006
$297k
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG005842NIA NIH HHS P01 AG008291NIA NIH HHS P30 AG012815NIA NIH HHS R01 AG052527NIA NIH HHS R01 AG056329NIA NIH HHS R01 AG063944NIA NIH HHS R21 AG025169NIA NIH HHS U01 AG009740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to establish reference values for the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST) in a large, population-representative sample from 14 European countries. Data were collected among 45,470 participants aged 50 + years, as part of the 5th wave of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. The reference values for the FTSST were calculated as the 5th, 10th, 20th, 30th, 40th, 50th, 60th, 70th, 80th, 90th, and the 95th weighted percentile. The analyses were stratified by age and sex. For females, the best performance on the FTSST was observed among the 50-54-year-olds (5th percentile = 18 s; 50th percentile = 10 s; 95th percentile = 6 s) and the worst among 85-89-year-olds and ≥ 90-year-olds (5th percentile = 28 s; 50th percentile = 15 s; 95th percentile = 9 s). For males, the best performance was observed among the 55-59-year-olds (5th percentile = 18 s; 50th percentile = 9 s; 95th percentile = 5 s). The worst performance for males was observed among ≥ 90-year-olds (5th percentile = 26 s; 50th percentile = 15 s; 95th percentile = 9 s), even though the 10th percentile was higher (poorer performance) among 85-89-year-olds. The reference values indicate poorer performance on the test among females and in older age groups. The provided reference values for FTSST can be used for health screening, surveillance, and intervention planning, as they enable an interpretation of test results according to sex and age.

Indexed as

Exercise TestGeriatric AssessmentAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReference Values5STSAgeingLongevityNormative dataNormsPhysical performanceSarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID40875134
PMCPMC12972225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.