Observational studyScientific reports2025
Sit to stand and timed up and go in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies can significantly impair physical function, of which Sit to Stand (STS) and Timed Up and Go (TUG) are quick, operator independent measures. We aimed to evaluate psychometric properties of STS and TUG compared to established core set measures of disease activity; and assess feasibility of patients self-performing these tests remotely. Data from a 6-month prospective observational study (Myositis Patient Centered Tele-Research Study -My PACER) was analyzed. Patient-reported and functional assessments were collected monthly over 6 months. A total of 120 patients (75% female, 81% White, mean age 55.5 ± 13.4 years,52% Dermatomyositis, 39% Polymyositis, 9% Necrotizing Myopathy) participated. There was strong test-retest reliability between baseline and month one for STS (r = 0.80) and TUG (r = 0.87); p < 0.01. At baseline, STS and TUG showed a very strong correlation with each other (r = - 0.75) and with most CSMs. Strong correlations were seen with Muscle Disease Activity and a validated Patient Reported Outcome measure of physical function, PROMIS-PF 20. At 6 months, STS and TUG were significantly better among patients who improved according to Total Improvement Score. STS and TUG showed good reliability, even when self-performed remotely using video instructions, with excellent construct validity and responsiveness.
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.