Measurement properties of the sit-to-stand test in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis using the COSMIN guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Characteristics of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can include shortness of breath, chronic cough, sputum production and reduced exercise capacity. The sit-to-stand (STS) test variations (e.g., 5-repetition STS, 30-second STS) may be appropriate outcome measures to assess exercise capacity in people with COPD. To date, the measurement properties of the various STS tests in people with COPD have not been synthesized in a systematic review since the publication of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. The purpose of this proposed systematic review is to synthesize the literature of the measurement properties of the STS test variations among people with COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review will be conducted with methods consistent with the COSMIN guidelines. Peer-reviewed publications will be included if they assessed the measurement properties (reliability, validity, responsiveness) of a STS test in community-dwelling adults with COPD. We will search six databases from inception. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently and in duplicate. We will assess the risk of bias using the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool, assess results against the COSMIN updated criteria for good measurement properties, and summarize certainty of evidence using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Study results will be pooled by calculating weighted means and 95% confidence intervals or summarized narratively, as appropriate. CONCLUSION: This will be the first systematic review to synthesize the measurement properties of the STS tests in people with COPD using the methods recommended by COSMIN. Consequently, its results will be robust and may help clinicians or researchers identify the best variation of the STS test to use in their practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.076 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".