Reliability and validity of clinical tests of cardiorespiratory fitness: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Samuel Harkin, Stephen Cousins, Simon Locke, Brett Gordon
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.08.23286976

Abstract

Introduction Insufficient physical activity is a significant contributor to non-communicable disease amongst the global population. Insufficient physical activity is directly linked with reduced cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). CRF is as strong a predictor of mortality as well-established risk-factors such as smoking, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, however, it remains the only major risk factor not routinely assessed in primary health care settings. The aim of this review was to assess the validity and reliability of existing submaximal tests of CRF which can be employed in a standard medical consultation for the estimation of CRF and physical function in adults.

Methods A systematic review of the scientific literature was undertaken to find all studies reporting the reliability and/or validity of submaximal tests of CRF and physical function. Studies published up to 12 January 2023 were included in the search of the Medline, Embase, Cinahl, SPORTdiscus, Cochrane library, Informit Health and Web of Science databases. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies. Data including reliability of the submaximal protocols as measured by test-retest Pearson’s r (r) or Intraclass co-efficient (ICC); and validity as measured by the correlation between the submaximal protocol results and the graded exercise test results (r) was extracted. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the overall mean r of the correlation coefficients.

Results In total 1754 studies were identified. Following screening, 143 studies including 15,760 participants were included. All clinical tests included in meta-analysis demonstrated strong reliability. The Siconolfi step test (r=0.81), Incremental shuttle walk test (r=0.768) and 1- minute sit-to-stand test (r=0.65) demonstrated strongest validity following meta-analysis.

Conclusion Based on the validity of the tests outlined, these can be used as an acceptable method of estimating VO2peak in a broad population, without the cost and access issues of formal GXT.

1. Introduction

Insufficient physical activity is a significant contributor to non-communicable disease amongst the global population, including obesity, many types of cancer, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease, as well as all-cause mortality (1). In Australia, two thirds of adults report as overweight or obese and over half of Australian adults do not participate in sufficient physical activity to meet the Australian government’s recommended Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for Adults (2, 3). The economic cost of physical inactivity to the Australian health system is estimated at around $850 million annually, accounting for between 38,400 and 174,000 disability adjusted life years (DALYs) per year (4).

Insufficient physical activity is directly linked with reduced cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and reduced physical function (1, 5). Those with low cardiorespiratory fitness face a 70% higher risk of all-cause mortality and a 56% greater risk of cardiovascular disease mortality (5). CRF is as strong a predictor of mortality as well-established risk-factors such as cigarette smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (6). Evidently, measurement of CRF and tracking of progress towards improving CRF should become a standard part of clinical consultations, as is standard of care with hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes monitoring and smoking cessation (6).

Whilst the cost of inactivity is high, there is significant potential for improvement across global populations. CRF can be measured directly via graded exercise testing (GXT) and expressed as maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), or estimated from peak work rate achieved in GXT (VO2peak) or through submaximal testing via algorithm or correlation. Oxygen consumption can be converted to metabolic equivalents (MET), with most activities having an estimated MET value(7). There is no ‘lower threshold’ for the relative risk reduction benefit of regular exercise (1). For example, a 20% reduction in mortality attributable to cardiac causes is observed for every 1-MET increase in exercise capacity (8). Incidence of falls can be reduced by more than 50% with simple exercise interventions (9). To date, to our knowledge, no study has assessed the validity and reliability of submaximal testing that can be performed in a standard medical consultation, limiting the utility of CRF within clinical consultations.

CRF is recognised as an important marker of functional ability and cardiovascular health; however, it remains the only major risk factor not routinely assessed or regularly monitored in primary health care settings (10). The direct assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness via maximal testing is costly, requires equipment and trained personnel, as well as demanding a maximal effort which is frequently unattained in non-athletic participants (11, 12). Consequently, a large number of submaximal exercise protocols have been developed, involving stationary cycling, running, walking, arm ergometry and stepping; however, time, space or equipment requirements deem many inappropriate for regular medical clinical utility ((12)). Regular and routine clinical testing of physical function and CRF would allow clinicians to determine the CRF and functional capacity of their patients to aid in exercise prescription and counselling, whilst providing the patient with motivation and accountability to improve their health outcomes.

The aim of this review was to assess the validity and reliability of existing submaximal tests of CRF which can be employed in a standard medical consultation for the estimation of CRF and physical function.

2. Methods

2.1 Review Strategy

A systematic review of the scientific literature was undertaken to find all studies reporting the reliability and/or validity of submaximal tests of CRF and physical function. The study was registered with Prospero registration CRD42022368963 and protocol can be accessed via https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=368963. Studies published up to 12 January 2023 were included in the search of the Medline, Embase, Cinahl, SPORTdiscus, Cochrane library, Informit Health and Web of Science databases . The broad search strategy involved the following terms, limited to English language: ‘Physical function test’ OR ‘exercise test’ OR ‘graded exercise test’ OR ‘GXT’ OR ‘fitness test’ OR ‘squat test’ OR ‘sit to stand’ OR ‘step test’ AND ‘exercise tolerance’ OR ‘exercise capacity’ OR ‘cardiorespiratory fitness’ OR ‘aerobic fitness’ OR ‘aerobic capacity’ OR ‘time to fatigue’ AND ‘validity’ OR ‘valid’ OR ‘reliable’ OR ‘reliability’.

2.2 Eligibility criteria

Eligible studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) English language; (2) published any time from database establishment until 12 January 2023; (3) investigating a clinical test of physical function in (4) participants 18 years of age or older. In order to ensure that studies relevant to the aim of this review were analysed, particularly with regards to tests applicable in a clinical setting, studies were excluded on the following basis: (1) Study type - case reports, not original research, not in English language, conference proceedings; (2) Clinical test – equipment requirement beyond scope of that available in a standard Australian medical clinic (e.g. a step, chair or stopwatch), duration greater than ten minutes to administer, expense or technical expertise required to administer; (3) Validity and reliability descriptors – no relevant statistical analysis; (4) Outcomes of interest – no mention of one or more of heart rate, time to fatigue, VO2 peak, VO2 max, METs, number of repetitions.

2.3 Study selection

Studies were selected based on the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessment of study eligibility was performed using Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia, available at www.covidence.org) and conducted independently by two reviewers. Studies were excluded based on title and abstract and the reason for exclusion was recorded, with any disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Full texts of the remaining studies were assessed by two reviewers, with all authors discussing any disagreements to achieve a consensus view.

2.4 Data extraction

One author extracted all relevant data from included studies using a standardised form, with quality control performed on a random sample of 10 papers by two other reviewers. Data extracted included author, year and location of publication; population studied including mean age(standard deviation)[SD], gender split, BMI(SD) and medical condition (where relevant to the study) of participants; inclusion and exclusion criteria; sub-maximal protocol undertaken; graded exercise test undertaken; reliability and validity statistics; and other outcome measures of note (HR, VO2peak, RPE, 6MWD, sit-to-stand repetitions). The primary outcomes of interest were reliability of the submaximal protocols as measured by test-retest Pearson’s r (r) or Intraclass co-efficient (ICC); and validity as measured by the correlation between the submaximal protocol results and the graded exercise test results (r).

2.5 Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for analytical cross sectional studies (JBIC) (13). This checklist assesses specific domains of the studies to determine the potential risk of bias that can be answered with yes, no, or unclear. If the answer was yes, the question was assigned a score of 1. If the answer was no, unclear, or not applicable, it was assigned a score of 0. Studies with a score of 7-8 were deemed low risk of bias, 4-6 moderate and 0-3 high. No studies were excluded on the basis of risk of bias assessment.

2.6 Data synthesis

Meta-analyses were performed to determine the overall mean r of the correlation coefficients. Data including reliability of the submaximal protocols as measured by test-retest Pearson’s r (r) or Intraclass co-efficient (ICC); and validity as measured by the correlation between the submaximal protocol results and the graded exercise test results (r), was pooled using a random-effects model. Jamovi Version 2.2 (Computer Software retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org) was used for statistical analysis.

3. Results

3.1 Paper identification

In total 1754 studies (title and abstract) were identified following deletion of duplicates (n=80). Following screening, 1466 were excluded, with 283 full texts obtained for further eligibility assessment. 143 full-text papers were included for review (Figure 1).

Fig 1:
Fig 1:

PRISMA diagram of included studies

3.2 Sub-maximal test characteristics

The 143 included papers studied 49 different clinical tests of physical function. 75 studies assessed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87). Fifteen studies analysed the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) (18, 37, 56, 58, 68, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97). The 1-minute sit to stand(1mSTS) was studied in eight papers, the 6-minute step test (6MST) in seven, ‘timed up and go test’ (TUGT) in six, and the Siconolfi step test (SST) in five (70, 80, 86, 87, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114). Seven tests were studied in three papers, five tests were studied twice and fifty once. A degree of heterogeneity existed amongst the exact test protocols for many of the clinical tests described by the same name, however they were extracted as named by the authors.

3.3 Graded exercise test characteristics

A graded exercise test was included in 71 of the 143 studies included. Of these, 38 included a cycle ergometry based graded exercise test, with one additional study recumbent cycle ergometry. There were 32 treadmill based graded exercise tests included.

3.4 Quality assessment

Table 1 provides a summary of how each individual paper rated per the JBI critical appraisal checklist. Fifty (34.9%) included studies scored 7 or 8 to be deemed low risk of bias. Eighty-three (58.2%) had a moderate risk, and 10 (6.9%) high risk of bias.

View this table:
Table 1:

Quality assessment JBI critical appraisal checklist.

3.4 Participant characteristics

In total 15,670 participants were included across the 143 studies. The smallest study included 5 participants (39), the largest 5287 (115). Six studies reported no sex distribution, of the studies reporting, 5588 participants were female (approximately 37%).

3.4.1 Special populations

Thirty-nine studies included no specific medical condition inclusion criteria. Participants selected for respiratory conditions (including COPD, restrictive lung disease and sleep apnoea) were studied in 29 papers. Cardiovascular conditions were the focus in 21. Musculoskeletal, neurological, auto-immune, psychological and age based sub-groups were also studied in the remaining papers.

3.5 Measures

All included studies reported clinical test performance correlation with GXT performance in terms of Pearson’s r. Test-retest reliability was reported in terms of ICC or Pearson’s r.

3.6 Clinical tests

3.6.1 Walk test protocols

3.6.1.1 6MWT

A total of 71 included papers studied the 6MWT, with 21 cohorts from a total of 19 studies meeting inclusion in the meta-analysis for validity with correlation between 6MWT and directly measure VO2 peak on GXT results included. In total these studies included 1836 participants with a broad range of medical conditions. Overall the 6MWT demonstrated moderate positive correlation with performance on the graded exercise test (GXT), with r=0.581 (figure 2). The largest study, Shulman et al studied 574 adults older than 40 years awaiting elective non-cardiac surgery, and all participants had at least one cardiac risk factor, with low positive correlation overall r=0.36 (28). Kervio et al’s study of 24 patients of mean age 65 with NYHA grade II or III congestive cardiac failure (CCF) found the strongest association with GXT performance r=0.8 (16). Granger et al’s study of a cohort of 20 male lung cancer patients found the lowest correlation, r = 0.24 (58). Pankoff et al’s study of a fibromyalgia cohort pre and post exercise program found the pre-exercise cohort correlation of r=0.33 (30). The only included study of a ‘healthy’ population, Hong et al, involved a cohort of 73 healthy adults (37male, 36 female), mean age 30.8 who were screened for cardiorespiratory, orthopaedic and musculoskeletal conditions prior to participation, and found a correlation between 6MWT and GXT performance of r=0.671. Overall four studies of five CCF populations were included, with correlations ranging from 0.54 to 0.8 (16, 17, 23, 25). Two studies analysed pulmonary artery hypertension populations, with strong correlation noted r=0.77 and r=0.72 (18, 19).

Fig 2:
Fig 2:

6MWT performance vs GXT correlation forest plot

Fig 3:
Fig 3:

6MWT reliability (pearson’s r) forest plot

Fig 4:
Fig 4:

6MWT reliability (ICC) forest plot

Fig 5:
Fig 5:

ISWT performance vs GXT correlation forest plot

Fig 6:
Fig 6:

ISWT reliability (ICC) forest plot

Fig 7:
Fig 7:

SST vs GXT correlation forest plot

Fig 8:
Fig 8:

SST reliability (ICC) forest plot

Test-retest reliability of the 6MWT was studied in 27 studies of 1506 participants. In meta-analysis of 22 studies of 965 patients, with reliability measured by ICC, an overall ICC of 0.95, indicating strong test-retest reliability. For the remaining five studies of 541 participants r=0.93.

3.6.1.2 ISWT

Fourteen studies included the ISWT, with 5 studies meeting inclusion in the meta- analysis for validity (18, 58, 88, 92, 93, 94). In total these studies included 114 participants. Overall the ISWT demonstrated strong positive correlation with performance on GXT, with r=0.768. De Camargo et al’s study of a cohort of 75 patients with bronchiectasis was the largest cohort, with r=0.72 compared with a cycle ergometer GXT (88). Barbosa et al’s study of 50 asthma patients demonstrated the strong validity of the ISWT in this cohort at r=0.9 (93). Irisawa et al’s study of 19 patients with pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH) also demonstrated the strong validity, r=0.866, with participants recording the lowest mean ISWT distance (ISWD) at 359.4m, compared with 441m and 410m for the de Camargo and Granger cohorts respectively (18, 58, 88). Granger et al studied an all-male population of 20 non-small cell lung cancer patients with r=0.61 (58).

Test-retest reliability was very high across the five studies meeting inclusion criteria for reliability, with ICC=0.94 from 284 participants (37, 63, 88, 93, 94).

3.6.1.3 2-minute walk test (2MWT)

In total four papers included the 2MWT, however an insufficient number met the inclusion criteria to be meta-analysed. Two studies assessed the 2MWT performance correlation with GXT. Beckerman et al studied 141 patients with multiple sclerosis, finding poor validity r=0.44 (116). Leung et al studied 45 patients with moderate to severe COPD, finding a moderate correlation r=0.56 (66).

Two studies found strong test-retest reliability for the 2MWT, with again insufficient numbers included to be meta-analysed. Vancampfort (66) and Leung respectively found ICC=0.96 and ICC=0.99 (66, 83).

3.6.2 Step tests

3.6.2.1 Siconolfi step test (SST)

Three studies met the inclusion criteria for validity meta-analysis, with an overall population of 138 patients included and a strong correlation of r=0.81 established. Lemanska et al’s study of 66 men with prostate cancer was the largest included, with the weakest correlation at r=0.69 (112). Siconolfi’s original study of 48 healthy adults found a correlation of r=0.92 with a cycle ergometer GXT (114). Cooney et al found a strong correlation of r = 0.79 in 24 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)(111).

Reliability was very strong for the SST across 120 patients from 3 studies, with ICC = 0.92 demonstrating good test-retest reliability (111, 112, 113).

3.6.2.2 Chester step test (CST)

Two included studies assessed the validity of the Chester step test (117, 118). Sykes et al assessed 68 healthy adults and found strong correlation between CST and GXT result, r=0.92, with a standard error of predicted estimate of aerobic capacity (VO2peak) 3.9mlO2/kg/min (118). Reed et al in their 2020 study of 47 cardiac rehabilitation participants also found high moderate correlation r=0.693 (117). Their CST involved adjustment of step height within a range between 15-30cm “suitable to participants functional level”. Of note the Sykes population achieved a mean VO2Max of 52.1mlo2/kg/min, suggesting a good level of CRF, and validity in a population with good levels of fitness.

Neither study included correlation reliability statistics. Sykes et al (119) reported good test-retest reliability using the Bland and Altman method, finding a mean difference of - 0.7mlO2/kg/min (119).

3.6.2.3 6 minute step test (6MST)

Two studies correlated GXT performance with 6MST performance to determine validity, Giacomantonio et al found a strong correlation with GXT of r=0.88 in a population of 28 participants with two or more CVD risk factors, whereas Marinho et al found a weaker r=0.59 in 27 heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients (64, 109). Five studies of a total of 194 participants found good reliability, ICC = 0.97 across varied populations of healthy adults, an obstructive sleep apnoea cohort, patients with COPD and the above CVD and HFrEF cohort (Figure 9) (64, 72, 105, 108, 109).

Figure 9:
Figure 9:

6MST reliability (ICC) forest plot

Fig 10:
Fig 10:

1MSTST correlation with GXT forest plot

Fig 11:
Fig 11:

1MSTST reliability forest plot

Fig 12:
Fig 12:

5STST reliability (ICC)

3.6.2.4 2 minute step test (2MST)

One study assessed validity of the 2MST, finding a moderate correlation (r=0.54) with GXT performance, in a population of 36 Australian adults (120). The 2MST has demonstrated strong reliability (ICC>0.9) in two studies of 68 participants (121, 122)

3.6.2.4 YMCA step test (YMCAST)

Kieu et al demonstrated the validity of a YMCAST equation developed and validated for a Korean population aged 19-64 years, in a population of Vietnamese participants, with a correlation of 0.8 with treadmill VO2max (123). Santo et al (124)also earlier demonstrated the validity of the YMCAST in a cohort of healthy participants via recovery heart rate correlation with treadmill GXT VO2max (124), demonstrating a correlation of 0.58 using an adjustable step height based on participant’s height which may limit clinical applicability, however remains a potentially valid predictor of CRF.

No included studies assessed the reliability of the YMCAST.

3.6.2.5 Canadian aerobic fitness test (CAFT)

The CAFT was assessed in two studies describing three healthy cohorts of 60 participants in total (125, 126). Moderate correlation between CAFT performance and GXT performance was determined, r=0.645.

No test re-test reliability was established in included studies.

3.6.3 Squat tests

3.6.3.1 1 minute sit to stand test (1MSTST)

In total ten studies involving the 1MSTS were included, with three studies meeting the inclusion criteria for validity meta-analysis. Four studies of a total of 70 participants found an overall correlation of r=0.649 (98, 99, 101, 103). Radtke 2016, and Radtke 2017 studied a population with cystic fibrosis in pulmonary rehabilitation, with moderate and weak to

moderate correlation between the STS repetitions completed and VO2peak on GXT (98, 99). Gephine et al studied of a population with COPD demonstrated moderate to strong correlation between STS repetitions and VO2peak on GXT at 0.71 (101).

Five studies including 185 participants reported the reliability of the 1MSTST as strong, with an ICC on meta-analysis of 0.949 (80, 99, 100, 103, 127).

3.6.3.2 30 second sit to stand test (30STST)

No study of the validity of the 30STST meeting our inclusion criteria was included.

Three studies, Hansen et al (2018) in a cohort of patients with COPD and Ozcan-Kahraman et al (2020) a cohort of patients with pulmonary hypertension, and Lázaro-Martínez et al (2022) a cohort of patients with obesity, of a total of 147 participants demonstrated strong reliability, with an ICC of 0.94 and 0.95, and r=0.91 respectively (84, 87, 128).

3.6.3.3 The 5 repetition sit to stand test (5STST)

No study of the validity of the 5STST meeting our inclusion criteria was included.

Meta-analysis revealed ICC=0.91 demonstrating strong reliability. The 3 included studies demonstrated strong reliability individually. Curb et al (2006) studied 210 healthy participants, and found an ICC=0.8 (71). Jones et al (2013) studied 475 participants with COPD and found very strong reliability, an ICC of 0.97 (96). De Melo et al (2022) assessed reliability in 142 ICU patients at discharge (129).

3.6.3.4 Ruffier-Dickson squat test (RDST)

One study of 40 healthy adults, performed by Guo et al found a correlation of 0.82 between a model incorporating test performance as quantified using participants’ height, sex, age and resting, immediate post-test and one minute post-test HR, and GXT VO2max (130).

Sartor et al (2016) found the RDST demonstrated good reliability in a population of 81 healthy adults (12). Reliability was calculated measuring both HRpeak (ICC = 0.86) and via the Ruffier-Dickson Index (RDI), incorporating resting, post-test and one minute post-test HR.

3.6.4 Others

3.6.4.1 Timed up and go test (TUGT)

No included study of the validity of the TUGT met our inclusion criteria.

Four studies including a total of 417 participants demonstrated strong reliability, with a meta-analysis ICC of 0.94 (35, 86, 87, 90). This population included health adults (Spagnuolo et al), a cohort of patients with pulmonary hypertension (Ozcan-Kahraman et al), a cohort of patients with Down syndrome (Cabeza-Ruiz et al) and a CCF cohort (Hwang et al)(35, 86, 87, 90).

3.6.4.2 1RM leg press

Three studies analysing the 1RM leg press met the inclusion criteria, however none included reliability or validity statistics relevant to this review (75, 81, 131).

4. Discussion

The purpose of this review was to provide clinicians with information regarding the validity and reliability of submaximal tests of CRF that can be employed in a brief primary health care consultation with equipment that is readily available. This review included 143 studies of 49 clinical tests. Diverse populations of 15,670 total participants were included from studies meeting the inclusion criteria, as guided by the aims of the broad review, with a view to maintaining clinical relevance and applicability. Overall reliability of all tests included in meta-analyses were strong. Strongest validity was found for the SST, ISWT and 1MSTST on meta analysis.

4.1 Reliability

This review provides strong evidence for the reliability of the included clinical tests. The test- retest reliability of all included tests was high on meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed the 6MST was the most reliable test, however overall, all studies meta-analysed had a reliability of >0.9, and there was little difference between them. Of the studies included but in insufficient number to meta-analyse, good reliability was demonstrated for the 30STST, 5STST and RDST (12, 71, 84, 87, 96, 128, 129). The high test-retest reliability of the majority of the tests suggests they can be used to monitor changes in CRF over time as the results are evidently repeatable.

4.2 Validity

This study has demonstrated moderate to strong evidence regarding the efficacy of a variety of clinical tests to estimate CRF in adults. Amongst those included in meta-analysis, the Siconolfi step test demonstrated strongest validity from three studies of 138 participants of varied populations, including those with oncological and rheumatological conditions, as well as a healthy population (111, 112, 114).

Overall the walking tests, whilst the most studied, demonstrated poorer validity than the step or squat based tests. A high proportion of the included studies assess populations with generally poorer CRF as the test was intended, however the overall meta-analysis result supports the well documented ceiling effect of the 6MWT, and limiting the clinical applicability to the broader population (132, 133). This result supports that it may have more clinical utility in the rehabilitation setting, involving participants with lower VO2 peak. The ISWT demonstrated good validity and reliability on meta-analysis across five studies, and given this should be considered by clinicians (18, 134).

Step tests demonstrated good validity across studies of diverse populations, and have good clinical translation potential having to date been investigated to a lesser extent than walk tests. Of individual included studies, Sykes’ Chester step test paper demonstrates the strongest correlation with CRF(118). This may suggest that tests relying on HR measures conducted during test are superior to post/HR recovery based tests, and warrants further investigation. The three studies investigating the Siconolfi step test demonstrated highest correlation on meta-analysis, but with only 133 participants total, further investigation is warranted to further demonstrate the test’s value to the clinician(111, 112, 114). The 2MST demonstrated only moderate correlation with GXT CRF in the single included study, which may suggest there is insufficient duration to differentiate CRF levels in a well population (120).

Of the included squat tests, only one, 1MSTST, included sufficient data for meta-analysis. Seventy participants completing the 1MSTS with a moderate to strong correlation with CRF. The single papers were contrasting in their correlation with GXT, such as that of Guo et al (130)(RDST) demonstrated the RDST has good validity (0.82) using the author’s predictive model, however Diaz-Balboa’s (135) paper (30STST) demonstrated poor to moderate correlation – perhaps highlighting squat tests’ perceived limitations of relying more heavily on patients functional status, and reliance on HR recovery (130, 135).

4.3 Risk of bias

Overall quality of included studies was good, with high quality reporting to allow scientific replication. The vast majority of papers meta-analysed were moderate to low risk of bias, providing confidence that the results were unbiased. Many studies didn’t report or control for confounding factors, which may have influenced outcomes in some cases. In order for further adaptation of clinical tests of CRF in clinical practice, larger high-quality studies controlling confounding factors must be undertaken.

4.4 Strengths and limitations

The aim of this meta-analysis was to aggregate a wide array of populations and submaximal tests of CRF to maximise clinical application. Omission of studies of tests longer than 10 minutes, and requiring minimal but not the absence of equipment increases the risk of bias, and may have excluded highly relevant studies. This however allowed the goal of maintaining a clinical applicability lens to be met. The comparison between studies may have been limited by the heterogeneity of GXT protocols, as has been discussed by authors previously, however with a view to pragmatism, GXT performance was taken at face value from the included studies (136, 137). The selection criteria applied included only adult data in the analysis, and where papers included paediatric participants, adult data were extracted where possible and the study included, however in some cases the adult data could not be extracted in isolation and so that data set excluded, potentially impacting overall study results. The review included only English language papers, potentially excluding relevant studies. By design, this study included a broad population and large number of clinical tests which can be utilised in a standard primary care consultation. Further research is warranted into the applicability of valid and reliable clinical tests in specific populations.

5. Conclusion

The safe, cost-effective and accurate assessment and regular monitoring of CRF in the primary health care setting presents the clinician with the opportunity to personalise exercise prescription and counselling for their patient, whilst providing the patient with motivation and accountability to improve their health outcomes. This review has identified a number of submaximal tests of CRF which can be employed in a standard medical consultation. The SST and CST demonstrate their potential for clinical translation with further investigation in larger populations. The ISWT appears superior to the 6MWT and should be considered by clinicians. Based on the validity of the tests outlined, these can be used as an acceptable method of estimating VO2peak in a broad population, without the cost and access issues of formal GXT. The high test-retest reliability of the majority of the tests suggests they can be used to monitor changes in CRF over time. Further research is needed to optimise the translation of research-based exercise testing into regular clinical practice.

Data Availability

As this is asystematicreviewand meta-analysis,all relevantdata can be foundwithinthe cited primaryarticles.Furthermore, all relevantdata for the meta-analysesare reportedwithinthe manuscript(forestplots)and its supplementaryfiles

REFERENCES:

  1. 1.↵
    Brown WJ, Bauman A.E., Bull, F.C., Burton N.W. Development of Evidence-based Physical Activity Recommendations for Adults (18-64 years). . Report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Health, August 2012. 2012.
  2. 2.↵
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s health 2018. Canberra: AIHW. 2018.
  3. 3.↵
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian Burden of Disease Study: impact and causes of illness and death in Australia 2015. Canberra: AIHW. 2019.
  4. 4.↵
    Crosland P, Ananthapavan, J., Davison, J., Lambert, M., Carter, R. The economic cost of preventable disease in Australia: a systematic review of estimates and methods. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2019;43(5):484–95.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Kodama S, Saito K, Tanaka S, Maki M, Yachi Y, Asumi M, et al. Cardiorespiratory Fitness as a Quantitative Predictor of All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in Healthy Men and Women: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2009;301(19):2024–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    Ross R, Blair SN, Arena R, Church TS, Després JP, Franklin BA, et al. Importance of Assessing Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Clinical Practice: A Case for Fitness as a Clinical Vital Sign: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;134(24):e653–e99.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, Meckes N, Bassett Jr DR, Tudor-Locke C, et al. 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(8):1575–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Myers J, Prakash M, Froelicher V, Do D, Partington S, Atwood JE. Exercise Capacity and Mortality among Men Referred for Exercise Testing. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;346(11):793–801.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Cadore E, Rodríguez-Mañas L, Sinclair A, Izquierdo M. Effects of different exercise interventions on risk of falls, gait ability, and balance in physically frail older adults: a systematic review. Rejuvenation Res. 2013;16(2):105–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Kaminsky LA, Arena R, Beckie TM, Brubaker PH, Church TS, Forman DE, et al. The Importance of Cardiorespiratory Fitness in the United States: The Need for a National Registry. Circulation. 2013;127(5):652–62.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    Poole DC, Wilkerson DP, Jones AM. Validity of criteria for establishing maximal O2 uptake during ramp exercise tests. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008;102(4):403–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Sartor F, Bonato M, Papini G, Bosio A, Mohammed RA, Bonomi AG, et al. A 45- second self-test for cardiorespiratory fitness: Heart rate-based estimation in healthy individuals. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(12).
  13. 13.↵
    Aromataris E, (Editors) MZ. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020.
  14. 14.↵
    Kristjánsdóttir AR, M.; Einarsson, M. B.;Torfason, B. A comparison of the 6-minute walk test and symptom limited graded exercise test for Phase II cardiac rehabilitation of older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2004;27(2):65–8.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Mänttäri AS, Jaana; Sievänen, Harri; Husu, Pauliina; Vähä-Ypyä, Henri; Valkeinen, Heli; Tokola, Kari; Vasankari, Tommi. Six-minute walk test: a tool for predicting maximal aerobic power (VO2 max) in healthy adults. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2018;38(6):1038–45.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Kervio GV, N. S. ; Leclercq, C.;Daubert, J. C.;Carre, F. Intensity and daily reliability of the six-minute walk test in moderate chronic heart failure patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2004;85(9):1513–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    Guazzi MD, K.;Vicenzi, M.;Arena, R. Six-minute walk test and cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with chronic heart failure: a comparative analysis on clinical and prognostic insights. Circ. 2009;2(6):549–55.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Irisawa HT, K.; Inui, N.; Miyakawa, S.; Morishima, Y.; Mizushima, T.; Watanabe, H. Incremental shuttle walk test as a valuable assessment of exercise performance in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Circulation Journal. 2014;78(1):215–21.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Fowler RMJ, S. C.; Maiorana, A. J.; Gain, K. R.; O’Driscoll, G.; Gabbay, E. Measurement properties of the 6-min walk test in individuals with exercise-induced pulmonary arterial hypertension. Internal Medicine Journal. 2011;41(9):679–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Kehmeier ESS, M. H.; Galonska, A.; Zeus, T.; Verde, P.; Kelm, M. Diagnostic value of the six-minute walk test (6MWT) in grown-up congenital heart disease (GUCH): Comparison with clinical status and functional exercise capacity. International Journal of Cardiology. 2016;203:90–7.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Pereira de Sousa LAB, R. R.; Ribeiro, A. L.; Baracho, S. M.; da Costa Val Barros, V.; Carvalho, V. T.; Parreira, V. F. Six-minute walk test in patients with permanent cardiac pacemakers. J Mol Signal. 2008;28(4):253–7.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Carvalho EEC, D. C.; Crescencio, J. C.; Santi, G. L.; Papa, V.; Marques, F.; Schmidt, A.; Marin-Neto, J. A.; Simoes, M. V.; Gallo Junior, L. Heart failure: comparison between six- minute walk test and cardiopulmonary test. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia. 2011;97(1):59–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Schmidt KV, L.; Thiel, C.; Jager, E.; Banzer, W. Validity of the six-minute walk test in cancer patients. International journal of sports medicine. 2013;34(7):631–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    Mossberg KAF, E. Responsiveness and validity of the six-minute walk test in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Physical therapy. 2012;92(5):726–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    Maldonado-Martin SB, P. H.; Kaminsky, L. A.; Moore, J. B.; Stewart, K. P.; Kitzman, D. W. The relationship of a 6-min walk to VO(2 peak) and VT in older heart failure patients. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(6):1047–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    Carter RH, D. B.; Grothues, C.; Nwasuruba, C.; Stocks, J.; Tiep, B. Criterion validity of the Duke Activity Status Index for assessing functional capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation. 2002;22(4):298–308.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Vancampfort DB, R.; Sienaert, P.; Wyckaert, S.; De Herdt, A.; De Hert, M.; Probst, M. Validity of the 6min walk test in outpatients with bipolar disorder. Psychiatry research. 2015;230(2):664–7.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Shulman MAC, B. H.; Wijeysundera, D. N.; Pearse, R. M.; Thompson, B.; Torres, E.;, et al. Using the 6-minute walk test to predict disability-free survival after major surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2019;122(1):111–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Metz LT, David; Peirrera, Bruno; Richard, Ruddy; Julian, Valérie; Duclos, Martine. A new equation based on the 6-min walking test to predict VO2peak in women with obesity. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(14):1702–7.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Pankoff BO, T.; Lucy, D.; White, K. Validity and responsiveness of the 6 minute walk test for people with fibromyalgia. Journal of Rheumatology. 2000;27(11):2666–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Beretta LS, A.; Lemos, A.; Masciocchi, M.; Scorza, R. Validity of the Saint George’s Respiratory Questionnaire in the evaluation of the health-related quality of life in patients with interstitial lung disease secondary to systemic sclerosis. Rheumatology. 2007;46(2):296–301.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    Donaldson SW, L.; Day, A.; Weiford, B. Validity of a Submaximal 6-min Recumbent Stepper Test for Cardiac Rehabilitation. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention. 2019;39(2):E14–E7.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Lin SJB, N. H. Six-minute walk test in persons with transtibial amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(12):2354–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    Olper LC, P.; De Santi, F.; Meloni, C.; Gatti, R. Validation of the treadmill Six-Minute Walk Test in people following cardiac surgery. Physical therapy. 2011;91(4):566–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    Cabeza-Ruiz RA-C, F. J.; Ruiz-Gavilan, I.; Sanchez-Lopez, A. M. Feasibility and reliability of a physical fitness test battery in individuals with down syndrome. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(15).
  36. 36.↵
    Ben Saad HP, C.; Tabka, Z.; Mtir, A. H.; Chemit, M.; Hassaoune, R.; Ben Abid, T.; Zara, K.; Mercier, G.; Zbidi, A.; Hayot, M. 6-minute walk distance in healthy North Africans older than 40 years: influence of parity. Respiratory Medicine. 2009;103(1):74–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    da Cunha-Filho ITP, D. A.; de Carvalho, A. M.; Campedeli, L.; Soares, M.; de Sousa Freitas, J. The reliability of walking tests in people with claudication. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86(7):574–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Hanson LCM, H.; Taylor, N. F. The retest reliability of the six-minute walk test in patients referred to a cardiac rehabilitation programme. Physiotherapy Research International. 2012;17(1):55–61.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Nielsen KEN, D. H.; Lin, S.; Fieseler, K. C. R.; Sterling, T. M.; Ver Hoef, R. L.; Knipper, J. S.; Wilson, J. S.; Foxen, M. F. Changes in exercise responses and tolerance following an eight week pulmonary rehabilitation program. Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal (American Physical Therapy Association, Cardiopulmonary Section). 1997;8(4):3–11.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Buch MHD, C. P.; Furst, D. E.; Guillevin, L.; Rubin, L. J.; Wells, A. U.; Matucci-Cerinic, M.; Riemekasten, G.; Emery, P.; Chadha-Boreham, H.; Charef, P.; Roux, S.; Black, C. M.; Seibold, J. R. Submaximal exercise testing in the assessment of interstitial lung disease secondary to systemic sclerosis: Reproducibility and correlations of the 6-min walk test. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2007;66(2):169–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    Borel BF, C.; Saison, S.; Bart, F.; Grosbois, J. M. An original field evaluation test for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease population: the six-minute stepper test. Clinical rehabilitation. 2010;24(1):82–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Nathan SDDB, R. M.; Albera, C.; Bradford, W. Z.; Costabel, U.; Kartashov, A.; Noble, P. W.; Sahn, S. A.; Valeyre, D.; Weycker, D.; King, T. E. Validation of test performance characteristics and minimal clinically important difference of the 6-minute walk test in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respiratory Medicine. 2015;109(7):914–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Kervio GC, F.; Ville, N. S. Reliability and intensity of the six-minute walk test in healthy elderly subjects. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2003;35(1):169–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. 44.↵
    Correa FRdSA, M. A.; Bianchim, M. S.; Crispim de Aquino, A.; Guerra, R. L.; Dourado, V. Z. Heart rate variability during 6-min walk test in adults aged 40 years and older. International journal of sports medicine. 2013;34(2):111–5.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Bauman HCA, H. M. Relationship between functional exercise capacity and general quality of life in nonsurgical patients with lower-extremity peripheral arterial disease. Journal of vascular nursing : official publication of the Society for Peripheral Vascular Nursing. 1997;15(1):21–8.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Kierkegaard MT, A. Reliability and feasibility of the six minute walk test in subjects with myotonic dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord. 2007;17(11-12):943–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    Mossberg KA. Reliability of a timed walk test in persons with acquired brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82(5):385–90; quiz 91-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.↵
    Vancampfort DP, M.; Sweers, K.; Maurissen, K.; Knapen, J.; De Hert, M. Reliability, minimal detectable changes, practice effects and correlates of the 6-min walk test in patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research. 2011;187(1-2):62–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 49.↵
    Gomberg-Maitland MH, D.; Benza, R. L.; McLaughlin, V. V.; Tapson, V. F.; Barst, R. J. Creation of a model comparing 6-minute walk test to metabolic equivalent in evaluating treatment effects in pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2007;26(7):732–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.↵
    Jehn MS-T, A.; Schuster, T.; Hanssen, H.; Weis, M.; Halle, M.; Koehler, F. Accelerometer- based quantification of 6-minute walk test performance in patients with chronic heart failure: applicability in telemedicine. Journal of Cardiac Failure. 2009;15(4):334–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    Vancampfort DW, S.; Sienaert, P.; De Hert, M.; Soundy, A.; Rosenbaum, S.; Richards, J.; Probst, M. Test-retest study of the six-minute walk test in people with bipolar disorder. Psychiatria Danubina. 2016;28(1):39–44.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    Grosbois JMR, C.; Chehere, B.; Coquart, J.; Behal, H.; Bart, F.; Wallaert, B.; Chenivesse, C. Six-minute stepper test: A valid clinical exercise tolerance test for COPD patients. International Journal of COPD. 2016;11(1):657–63.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    Manali EDL, P.; Triantafillidou, C.; Kolilekas, L. F.; Sotiropoulou, C.; Milic-Emili, J.; Roussos, C.; Papiris, S. A. MRC chronic Dyspnea Scale: Relationships with cardiopulmonary exercise testing and 6-minute walk test in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients: a prospective study. BMC polm. 2010;10:32.
  54. 54.↵
    Bonnevie TA, M.; Prieur, G.; Combret, Y.; Debeaumont, D.; Patout, M.; Cuvelier, A.; Viacroze, C.; Muir, J. F.; Medrinal, C.; Gravier, F. E. The six-minute stepper test is related to muscle strength but cannot substitute for the one repetition maximum to prescribe strength training in patients with COPD. International Journal of Copd. 2019;14:767–74.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Beekman EM, I.; Hendriks, E. J. M.; Klaassen, M. P. M.; Gosselink, R.; van Schayck, O. C. P.; de Bie, R. A. Course length of 30 metres versus 10 metres has a significant influence on six-minute walk distance in patients with COPD: An experimental crossover study. Journal of Physiotherapy. 2013;59(3):169–76.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Eiser NW, D.; Dore, C. J. Reliability, repeatability and sensitivity to change of externally and self-paced walking tests in COPD patients. Respiratory Medicine. 2003;97(4):407–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    Berghmans DDL, A. F.; Bastiaenen, C. H.; Ilhan, M.; Lencer, N. H.; Roox, G. M. Reliability, agreement, and responsiveness of a 6-minute walk/run test in patients with heart disease. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2013;20(1):135–41.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    Granger CLD, L.; Parry, S. M.; Martin, J.; Dimitriadis, T.; Sorohan, M.; Irving, L. Which field walking test should be used to assess functional exercise capacity in lung cancer? An observational study. BMC polm. 2015;15:89.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Hornby BM, Rebecca; Buckley, Lucy; Carson, Kimberley; Gooding, Tiffany; Vernon, Hilary J. Functional exercise capacity, strength, balance and motion reaction time in Barth syndrome. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. 2019;14(1):N.PAG-N.PAG.
  60. 60.↵
    Modai GS, B.; Bar-Haim, S.; Hutzler, Y. Stair climbing test post-stroke: feasibility, convergent validity and metabolic, cardiac, and respiratory responses. Topics in stroke rehabilitation. 2015;22(4):281–8.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Carbonell-Baeza AÁ-G, I. C.; Segura-Jiménez, V.; Castro-Piñero, J.; Ruiz, J. R.; Delgado-Fernández, M.; Aparicio, V. A. Reliability and Feasibility of Physical Fitness Tests in Female Fibromyalgia Patients. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015;36(2):157–62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    Boer PHM, S. J. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change scores of twelve functional fitness tests in adults with Down syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2016;48:176–85.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    Lee RGC, C. Y.; Hsiao, C. C.; Lin, R. Heart rate monitoring systems in groups for reliability and validity assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness analysis. Biomedical Engineering - Applications, Basis and Communications. 2015;27(6).
  64. 64.↵
    Giacomantonio NM, P.; Rasmussen, R.; MacKay-Lyons, M. J. Reliability and Validity of the 6-Minute Step Test for Clinical Assessment of Cardiorespiratory Fitness in People at Risk of Cardiovascular Disease. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(5):1376–82.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    Hong SHY, H. I.; Kim, D. I.; Gonzales, T. I.; Brage, S.; Jeon, J. Y. Validation of submaximal step tests and the 6-min walk test for predicting maximal oxygen consumption in young and healthy participants. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(23).
  66. 66.↵
    Leung ASC, K. K.; Sykes, K.; Chan, K. S. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a 2- min walk test to assess exercise capacity of COPD patients. Chest. 2006;130(1):119–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. 67.↵
    Lee MC. Validity of the 6-minute walk test and step test for evaluation of cardio respiratory fitness in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J. 2018;22(1):49–55.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    Rodrigues ADM, Marianna; Nellessen, Aline G.; Hernandes, Nidia A.l; Neder, J. Alberto; Pitta, Fabio. Is the six-minute walk test a useful tool to prescribe high-intensity exercise in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? Heart & Lung. 2016;45(6):550–6.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    Witham MDS, J. A.; Sumukadas, D.; Dryburgh, M.; McMurdo, M. E. A comparison of the Endurance Shuttle Walk test and the Six Minute Walk test for assessment of exercise capacity in older people. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2012;24(2):176–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    Kohlbrenner DB, C.; Radtke, T. The 1-Minute Sit-to-Stand Test in Lung Transplant Candidates: An Alternative to the 6-Minute Walk Test. Respiratory care. 2020;65(4):437–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    Curb JDC-U, C. D.; Rodriguez, B. L.; Grove, J.; Guralnik, J.; Willcox, B. J.; Donlon, T. A.; Masaki, K. H.; Chen, R. Performance-based measures of physical function for high-function populations. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2006;54(5):737–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  72. 72.↵
    Magalhaes MGST, J. B.; Santos, A. M. B.; Climaco, D. C. S.; Silva, T. N. S.; Lima, A. M. J. Construct validity and reproducibility of the six-minute step test in subjects with obstructive sleep apnea treated with continuous positive airway pressure. J Bras Pneumol. 2020;46(3):e20180422.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    Vagaggini BT, M.; Severino, S.; Marcello, M.; Antonelli, S.; Brogi, S.; De Simone, C.; Giardina, A.; Paggiaro, P. L. Shuttle walking test and 6-minute walking test induce a similar cardiorespiratory performance in patients recovering from an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respiration. 2003;70(6):579–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  74. 74.↵
    Vancampfort D, Vandael H, Hallgren M, Van Damme T. Test-retest reliability and correlates of the 6-min walk test in people with alcohol use disorders. 2021.
  75. 75.↵
    Tsuji K, Matsuoka YJ, Kuchiba A, Suto A, Ochi E. Accuracy of exercise-based tests for estimating cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength in early-stage breast cancer survivors in Japan. 2022.
  76. 76.↵
    Dourado VZ, Nishiaka RK, Simoes M, Lauria VT, Tanni SE, Godoy I, et al. Classification of cardiorespiratory fitness using the six-minute walk test in adults: Comparison with cardiopulmonary exercise testing. 2021.
  77. 77.↵
    Cheng DK, Nelson M, Brooks D, Salbach NM. Validation of stroke-specific protocols for the 10-meter walk test and 6-minute walk test conducted using 15-meter and 30-meter walkways. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020;27(4):251–61.
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    Kakitsuka EE, Morita AA, Itakussu EY, Kuwahara RM, Anami EHT, Pitta F, et al. Six-minute walk test in burned subjects: Applicability, reproducibility and performance at hospital discharge. Burns. 2020;46(7):1540–7.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    Reychler GA, N.; Dewulf, S.; Morale Mestre, N.; Caty, G. Validation of 6min step test and 4-m gait speed in children: A randomized cross-over study. Gait Posture. 2018;61:19–24.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    Crook SB, G.; Schultz, K.; Lehbert, N.; Jelusic, D.; Keusch, S.; Wittmann, M.; Schuler, M.; Radtke, T.; Frey, M.; Turk, A.; Puhan, M. A.; Frei, A. A multicentre validation of the 1-min sit-to-stand test in patients with COPD. European Respiratory Journal. 2017;49(3).
  81. 81.↵
    Zanini AA, M.; Cherubino, F.; Zampogna, E.; Azzola, A.; Chetta, A.; Spanevello, A. The one repetition maximum test and the sit-to-stand test in the assessment of a specific pulmonary rehabilitation program on peripheral muscle strength in COPD patients. International Journal of Copd. 2015;10:2423–30.
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.↵
    Simmonds MJS, Maureen J. Physical function in patients with cancer: psychometric characteristics and clinical usefulness of a physical performance test battery. Journal of Pain & Symptom Management. 2002;24(4):404–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    Vancampfort DB, D.; Kimbowa, S.; Firth, J.; Schuch, F.; Van Damme, T.; Mugisha, J. Test-retest reliability, validity, and correlates of the 2-min walk test in outpatients with depression. Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy. 2020;25(2):e1821.
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.↵
    Hansen HB, N.; Frolich, A.; Godtfredsen, N.; Bieler, T. Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility of the 6-minute walk test and the 30-second sit-to-stand test in patients with severe and very severe COPD. International Journal of Copd. 2018;13:3447–57.
    OpenUrl
  85. 85.↵
    Reilly TT, M. A sub-maximal occupational aerobic fitness test alternative, when the use of heart rate is not appropriate. Work (Reading, Mass). 2010;36(3):333–7.
    OpenUrl
  86. 86.↵
    Hwang RM, N. R.; Mandrusiak, A.; Mudge, A.; Suna, J.; Adsett, J.; Russell, T. Timed Up and Go Test: A Reliable and Valid Test in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure. Journal of Cardiac Failure. 2016;22(8):646–50.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.↵
    Ozcan Kahraman BO, I.; Akdeniz, B.; Ozpelit, E.; Sevinc, C.; Acar, S.; Savci, S. Test-retest reliability and validity of the timed up and go test and 30-second sit to stand test in patients with pulmonary hypertension. International Journal of Cardiology. 2020;304:159–63.
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.↵
    De Camargo AAR, S. Z.; Athanazio, R. A.; Amaral, T. S.; De Cordoba Lanza, F.; Selman, J. P. R.; Cukier, A.; Fernandes, F. L. A.; Carvalho, C. R. F.; Stelmach, R.; Dal Corso, S. Incremental shuttle walking test: A reproducible and valid measure of exercise tolerance in adult subjects with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (nCF-BCt). European Respiratory Journal Conference: European Respiratory Society Annual Congress. 2013;42(SUPPL. 57).
  89. 89.↵
    Bardin MGD, V. Z. Association between the occurrence of falls and the performance on the incremental shuttle walk test in elderly women. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy. 2012;16(4):275–80.
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.↵
    Spagnuolo DLJ, S. P.; Iwama, A. M.; Dourado, V. Z. Walking for the assessment of balance in healthy subjects older than 40 years. Gerontology. 2010;56(5):467–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  91. 91.↵
    Thornton HEW, T. Harcourt. Using simple exercise tests in the field to assess susceptibility to Acute Mountain Sickness; the Chester Step Test may be a useful predictor. Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service. 2017;103(3):175–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. 92.↵
    Ang WQ, Tan HT, Goh SM, Seng SW, Huang KS, Chan MY, et al. Chinese (Mandarin) translation of the incremental shuttle walk test and its validity and reliability: A cross-sectional study. Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal. 2022;42(02):137–49.
    OpenUrl
  93. 93.↵
    Barbosa RCC, Silva RA, Lunardi AC, Silva STC, Corso SD, Fonseca AJ, et al. Reproducibility, validity, and reliability of the incremental step test for subjects with moderate to severe asthma. 2022.
  94. 94.↵
    Quintino LF, Aguiar LT, de Brito SAF, Pereira AS, Teixeira-Salmela LF, de Morais Faria CDC. Reliability and validity of the incremental shuttle walking test in individuals after stroke. 2021.
  95. 95.↵
    Kon SSP, M. S.; Canavan, J. L.; Clark, A. L.; Jones, S. E.; Nolan, C. M.; Cullinan, P.; Polkey, M. I.; Man, W. D. Reliability and validity of 4-metre gait speed in COPD. European Respiratory Journal. 2013;42(2):333–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. 96.↵
    Jones SE, Kon SS, Canavan JL, Patel MS, Clark AL, Nolan CM, et al. The five-repetition sit-to-stand test as a functional outcome measure in COPD. Thorax. 2013;68(11):1015–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. 97.↵
    Lee ALC, N.; Holland, A. E.; Hill, C. J.; McDonald, C. F.; Burge, A. T.; Rautela, L.; Thompson, P. J.; Stirling, R. G.; Jenkins, S. Field walking tests are reliable and responsive to exercise training in people with non’cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention. 2015;35(6):439–45.
    OpenUrl
  98. 98.↵
    Radtke T, Hebestreit H, Puhan M, Kriemler S. The 1-min sit-to-stand test in cystic fibrosis - Insights into cardiorespiratory responses. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. 2017;16(6):744–51.
    OpenUrl
  99. 99.↵
    Radtke T, Puhan M, Hebestreit H, Kriemler S. The 1-min sit-to-stand test-A simple functional capacity test in cystic fibrosis? Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. 2016;15(2):223–6.
    OpenUrl
  100. 100.↵
    Reychler GB, E.; Peran, L.; Pichon, R.; Le Ber-Moy, C.; Ouksel, H.; Liistro, G.; Chambellan, A.; Beaumont, M. One minute sit-to-stand test is an alternative to 6MWT to measure functional exercise performance in COPD patients. Clin Respir J. 2018;12(3):1247–56.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    Gephine S, Bergeron S, Tremblay-Labrecque P-F, Mucci P, Saey D, Maltais F. Cardiorespiratory Response during the 1-min Sit-to-Stand Test in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;Publish Ahead of Print:1.
  102. 102.↵
    Tarrant BJR, R.; Maitre, C. L.; Poulsen, M.; Corbett, M.; Snell, G.; Thompson, B. R.; Button, B. M.; Holland, A. E. The Utility of the Sit-to-Stand Test for Inpatients in the Acute Hospital Setting After Lung Transplantation. Physical therapy. 2020;13.
  103. 103.↵
    Tremblay Labrecque PF, Harvey J, Nadreau E, Maltais F, Dion G, Saey D. Validation and Cardiorespiratory Response of the 1-Min Sit-to-Stand Test in Interstitial Lung Disease. 2020.
  104. 104.↵
    Levesque JA, A.; Li, P. Z.; Herengt, F.; Brosson, C.; Grosbois, J. M.; Bernady, A.; Bender, A.; Favre, M.; Guerder, A.; Surpas, P.; Similowski, T.; Aguilaniu, B. Minimal clinically important difference of 3-minute chair rise test and the DIRECT questionnaire after pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients. International Journal of Copd. 2019;14:261–9.
    OpenUrl
  105. 105.↵
    Selig SEG, C. M.; Carlson, J. S. A multi-stage step test protocol for people with low exercise capacity. Clinical Kinesiology. 2000;54(3):67–71.
    OpenUrl
  106. 106.↵
    Dal Corso SD, S. R.; Neder, J. A.; Malaguti, C.; de Fuccio, M. B.; de Castro Pereira, C. A.; Nery, L. E. A step test to assess exercise-related oxygen desaturation in interstitial lung disease. European Respiratory Journal. 2007;29(2):330–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  107. 107.↵
    Di Thommazo-Luporini LPC, L.; Luporini, R.; Trimer, R.; Falasco Pantoni, C. B.; Catai, A. M.; Arena, R.; Borghi-Silva, A. The six-minute step test as a predictor of cardiorespiratory fitness in obese women. European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine. 2015;51(6):793–802.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.↵
    Munari AB, Silva I, Gulart AA, Venancio RS, Klein SR, Zanotto J, et al. Reproducibility of the 6-Min Step Test in Subjects With COPD. 2021.
  109. 109.↵
    Marinho RS, Jurgensen SP, Arcuri JF, Goulart CL, Santos PBD, Roscani MG, et al. Reliability and validity of six-minute step test in patients with heart failure. 2021.
  110. 110.↵
    Cooney JKA, Y. A.; Moore, J. P.; Lemmey, A. B.; Jones, J. G.; Madisson, P. J.; Thom, J. M. Validity and reliability of the siconolfi step test for estimating cardiorespiratory fitness in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology. 2011;50:iii84.
    OpenUrl
  111. 111.↵
    Cooney JKM, J. P.; Ahmad, Y. A.; Jones, J. G.; Lemmey, A. B.; Casanova, F.; Maddison, P. J.; Thom, J. M. A simple step test to estimate cardio-respiratory fitness levels of rheumatoid arthritis patients in a clinical setting. International Journal of Rheumatology. 2013;2013 (no pagination).
  112. 112.↵
    Lemanska AP, K.; Aning, J. J.; Griffin, B. A.; Manders, R.; Saxton, J. M.; Wainwright, J.; Faithfull, S. The Siconolfi step test: a valid and reliable assessment of cardiopulmonary fitness in older men with prostate cancer. Eur. 2019;16:1.
  113. 113.↵
    Marcora SMC, F.; Fortes, M. B.; Maddison, P. J. Validity and reliability of the Siconolfi Step Test for assessment of physical fitness in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(6):1007–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  114. 114.↵
    Siconolfi SFG, C. E.; Lasater, T. M.; Carleton, R. A. A simple, valid step test for estimating maximal oxygen uptake in epidemiologic studies. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1985;121(3):382–90.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  115. 115.↵
    Jette MS, K.; Quenneville, J.; Landry, F. Relation between cardiorespiratory fitness and selected risk factors for coronary heart disease in a population of Canadian men and women. Cmaj. 1992;146(8):1353–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  116. 116.↵
    Beckerman HH, M.; Van Den Akker, L. E.; De Groot, V. The 2-minute walk test is not a valid method to determine aerobic capacity in persons with Multiple Sclerosis. NeuroRehabilitation. 2019;45(2):239–45.
    OpenUrl
  117. 117.↵
    Reed JLC, L. M.; Cole, C. A.; Harris, J.; Moran, B.; Scott, K.; Terada, T.; Buckley, J. P.; Pipe, A. L. Submaximal Exercise Testing in Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Settings (BEST Study). Frontiers in Physiology. 2020;10 (no pagination).
  118. 118.↵
    Sykes KR, A. The Chester step test -- a simple yet effective tool for the prediction of aerobic capacity. Physiotherapy. 2004;90(4):183–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  119. 119.↵
    Bland JM AD. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. . Lancet 1986;5:307– 10.
    OpenUrl
  120. 120.↵
    Freene N, Pike A, Smith D, Pradhananga A, Toohey K. Criterion Validity of the Older- adults 2-minute Step Test in Community-dwelling Middle-aged Adults. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2021;25(4):335–43.
    OpenUrl
  121. 121.↵
    Chow JJL, Fitzgerald C, Rand S. The 2 min step test: A reliable and valid measure of functional capacity in older adults post coronary revascularisation. 2022.
  122. 122.↵
    de Jesus SFC, Bassi-Dibai D, Pontes-Silva A, da Silva de Araujo A, de Freitas Faria Silva S, Veneroso CE, et al. Construct validity and reliability of the 2-Minute Step Test (2MST) in individuals with low back pain. 2022.
  123. 123.↵
    Kieu NTVJ, S. J.; Shin, S. W.; Jung, H. W.; Jung, E. S.; Won, Y. H.; Kim, Y. G.; Chae, S. W. The Validity of the YMCA 3-Minute Step Test for Estimating Maximal Oxygen Uptake in Healthy Korean and Vietnamese Adults. J. 2020;10(1):21–9.
    OpenUrl
  124. 124.↵
    Santo ASG, L. A. Predicting maximum oxygen uptake from a modified 3-minute step test. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2003;74(1):110–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. 125.↵
    Cox MHT, S. G.; Weller, I. M.; Corey, P. Reliability and validity of a fitness assessment for epidemiological studies. Canadian journal of sport sciences = Journal canadien des sciences du sport. 1992;17(1):49–55.
    OpenUrl
  126. 126.↵
    Grant JAJ, A. N.; Campagna, P. D. The prediction of VO2max: a comparison of 7 indirect tests of aerobic power. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (Allen Press Publishing Services Inc). 1999;13(4):346–52.
    OpenUrl
  127. 127.↵
    Tarrant BJ, Robinson R, Le Maitre C, Poulsen M, Corbett M, Snell G, et al. The Utility of the Sit-to-Stand Test for Inpatients in the Acute Hospital Setting After Lung Transplantation. 2020.
  128. 128.↵
    Lázaro-Martínez S, Orueta-Jiménez TJ, Arias-Vázquez PI, Castillo-Avila RG, Tovilla-Zárate CA, Hernández-Gil KDC, et al. Reproducibility and safety of the 30“ sit to stand test in individuals with obesity and cardiovascular risk factors. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2022;16(6):533–5.
    OpenUrl
  129. 129.↵
    de Melo ATA, Silva Guimaraes BF, Lapa ESCJR. The five times sit-to-stand test: safety, validity and reliability with critical care survivors’s at ICU discharge. 2022.
  130. 130.↵
    Guo YB, J.; Li, Q.; Leavitt, T.; Rosenberg, E. I.; Buford, T. W.; Smith, M. D.; Vincent, H. K.; Modave, F. A 3-minute test of cardiorespiratory fitness for use in primary care clinics. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7).
  131. 131.↵
    Benton MJA, J. L. Validation of functional fitness tests as surrogates for strength measurement in frail, older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(7):579–83; quiz 84-6, 90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  132. 132.↵
    Puente-Maestu L, Stringer W, Casaburi R. Exercise testing to evaluate therapeutic interventions in chronic respiratory diseases. Barcelona Respiratory Network. 2018;4.
  133. 133.↵
    Frost AE, Langleben D, Oudiz R, Hill N, Horn E, McLaughlin V, et al. The 6-min walk test (6MW) as an efficacy endpoint in pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials: demonstration of a ceiling effect. Vascul Pharmacol. 2005;43(1):36–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  134. 134.↵
    de Camargo AAA, T. S.; Rached, S. Z.; Athanazio, R. A.; Lanza, F. C.; Sampaio, L. M.; de Carvalho, C. R.; Cukier, A.; Stelmach, R.; Dal Corso, S. Incremental shuttle walking test: a reproducible and valid test to evaluate exercise tolerance in adults with noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(5):892–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  135. 135.↵
    Diaz-Balboa E, Gonzalez-Salvado V, Rodriguez-Romero B, Martinez-Monzonis A, Pedreira-Perez M, Cuesta-Vargas AI, et al. Thirty-second sit-to-stand test as an alternative for estimating peak oxygen uptake and 6-min walking distance in women with breast cancer: a cross-sectional study. 2022.
  136. 136.↵
    Myers J, Bellin D. Ramp exercise protocols for clinical and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Sports Medicine. 2000;30(1):23–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  137. 137.↵
    Bayonas-Ruiz A, Muñoz-Franco FM, Ferrer V, Pérez-Caballero C, Sabater-Molina M, Tomé-Esteban MT, et al. Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021;10(11):2312.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted March 08, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Reliability and validity of clinical tests of cardiorespiratory fitness: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Samuel Harkin, Stephen Cousins, Simon Locke, Brett Gordon
medRxiv 2023.03.08.23286976; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.08.23286976
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area