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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
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
