ArticlePeerJ2025
Validity, reliability and minimal detectable change in the sit-to-stand test for synchronous and asynchronous tele-assessment in post-COVID-19 condition.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Individuals with symptoms of long-term COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) who presented mild infection without needing invasive ventilatory support require rehabilitation and performance and monitoring evaluations. The 1-minute sit-to-stand test (STS) is used to assess individuals with COVID-19 and might be an alternative for remote use in this population. Objective: The current study aimed to validate the synchronous and asynchronous STS tele-assessment in individuals with post-COVID-19 condition to analyze the inter-evaluator reliability of the asynchronous STS, and identify the relationship between the participants' self-reported asynchronous STS results and those of the evaluator. Methods: Thirty-eight men and women with post-COVID syndrome who did not require invasive ventilator support were included in this study. The participants were assessed using STS in-person (STS-IP), synchronous (STS-S), and asynchronous (STS-A) tele-assessments. The participants also self-reported the total executed repetitions (STS-SR). The main outcomes were the number of repetitions performed in the STS-IP, STS-S, STS-A, and STS-SR. To verify STS-A reliability, the total repetitions registered between evaluators were compared. Results: STS-IP showed significant correlations and lower total repetitions compared to STS-S and STS-A. STS-A repetitions were significantly lower compared to STS-SR; however, a significant correlation was observed. The STS-S and STS-A showed minimal detectable change values of 6.6 and 10.5, respectively. In terms of reliability, there were no significant differences in total repetitions or errors found between evaluators' assessments of STS-A. Conclusion: The study demonstrated good and moderate evidence of validity for synchronous and asynchronous remote STS assessments, respectively, highlighting the impact of the assessment protocol on STS performance interpretation. Asynchronous STS presented high reliability.
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.