ArticleERJ open research2026
Validation of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire after severe COVID-19.
Article in ERJ open research, 2026. 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
52 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Physical inactivity is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 and often worsens after hospitalisation. Clinicians need quick, accurate assessments to target interventions. We aimed to assess the validity of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) in adults recovering 1 year after COVID-19 hospitalisation Methods: Post-hospitalisation for COVID-19, adults attended a 1-year-visit and completed the GPPAQ Physical Activity Index (PAI-4 active), 14-day wrist-worn accelerometry (moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) active) and other health outcomes. Validity was examined Results: 752 participants had GPPAQ and accelerometry (265 female, mean±sd age 60.9±11.6 years), MVPA 18.75 min·day Conclusions: GPPAQ demonstrates internal consistency, with construct and convergent validity in adults 1 year after COVID-19 hospitalisation. GPPAQ effectively identifies inactive individuals to support clinical care; however, its sensitivity suggests under-estimation of activity relative to accelerometry. Future pathways should combine GPPAQ with device-based assessment to optimise evaluation of physical activity to guide pulmonary rehabilitation and targeted interventions.
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.