4.3 Article

Reliability of the 30 s Chair Stand Test in Women with Fibromyalgia

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16132344

关键词

intraclass correlation coefficient; standard error of measurement; chronic pain; reliability analysis; physical fitness tests

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) [DEP2015-70356-R]
  2. Junta de Extremadura (Regional Government of Extremadura) [GR18155]
  3. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF/FEDER) 'a way of doing Europe'
  4. Biomedical Research Networking Center on Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES)
  5. FEDER funds from the European Union [CB16/10/00477]
  6. regional department of economy and infrastructure of the Government of Extremadura
  7. European Social Fund [PD16008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The 30 s chair stand test is often used to evaluate physical fitness in chronic pain populations. In patients with fibromyalgia, physical fitness is closely related to pain, quality of life, and fear of falling. However, the reliability of this test has only been evaluated concerning the number of repetitions. Objective: To evaluate the test-retest reliability of the 30 s chair stand test in women with fibromyalgia (n = 30), using data from the contact and non-contact time registered with an automatic chronometer (chronojump). Methods: Participants carried out the 30 s chair stand test twice with five minutes as a rest period, while an automatic chronometer recorded the time elapsed in contact with the chair (impulse phase) and not in contact (non-contact phase). Number and fear of falls in the last year and in the last six weeks were also recorded. Results: The reliability of duration of both phases was good. A relationship between these results and the number and fear of falling was also found. Conclusion: The analysis of movement phases in the 30 s chair stand test showed a good reliability in females with fibromyalgia, providing further useful information about the onset of muscle fatigue during the test.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据