Measurement properties of the sit-to-stand test in community-dwelling people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a COSMIN systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sit-to-stand (STS) test can assess physical function in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, there are multiple versions. No study has used current guidelines to assess the measurement properties of the STS tests in people with COPD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using current COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Full text peer-reviewed publications were included if they assessed the measurement properties (validity, reliability and/or responsiveness) of at least one STS test among community-dwelling people with COPD. We searched six databases and imported results into Covidence where title/abstract screening and full text selection was completed independently and in duplicate. Extraction was conducted independently and in duplicate using the COSMIN extraction file. We assessed study risk of bias (very good, adequate, doubtful or inadequate), measurement property quality (sufficient, indeterminate or insufficient) and overall certainty of evidence (high, moderate, low or very low) using the COSMIN recommended tools. RESULTS: We assessed 2577 titles/abstracts and 102 full texts for inclusion; 30 publications met eligibility. Seven unique STS tests were located with the most common being the 1 min STS test (n=14, 39%), 5-repetition STS test (n=10, 28%) and the 30 s STS test (n=8, 22%). Where assessed, reliability was sufficient for the 1 min, the 5-repetition and the 30 s STS tests. Only the 1 min STS test had high-quality evidence of sufficient construct validity, while the 30 s STS test was the sole test with at least moderate quality evidence of sufficient responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The 1 min STS test has the most robust measurement properties for cross-sectional assessments while the 30 s STS test is more robust to assess change.
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 | 0.041 | 0.214 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".