Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorCastro Piñero, José
dc.contributor.authorRuiz Ruiz, Jonatan 
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-07T10:09:06Z
dc.date.available2021-10-07T10:09:06Z
dc.date.issued2021-08-23
dc.identifier.citationCastro-Piñero, J... [et al.]. Criterion-Related Validity of Field-Based Fitness Tests in Adults: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3743. [https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163743]es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10481/70713
dc.descriptionThis project was supported by Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness in the 2017 call for R&D Projects of the State Program for Research, Development and Innovation Oriented to the Challenges of the Company; National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and of Innovation 2017-2020 (DEP2017-88043-R); and the Regional Government of Andalusia and University of Cadiz: Research and Knowledge Transfer Fund (PPIT-FPI19).es_ES
dc.description.abstractWe comprehensively assessed the criterion-related validity of existing field-based fitness tests used to indicate adult health (19–64 years, with no known pathologies). The medical electronic databases MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Web of Science (all databases) were screened for studies published up to July 2020. Each original study’s methodological quality was classified as high, low and very low, according to the number of participants, the description of the study population, statistical analysis and systematic reviews which were appraised via the AMSTAR rating scale. Three evidence levels were constructed (strong, moderate and limited evidence) according to the number of studies and the consistency of the findings. We identified 101 original studies (50 of high quality) and five systematic reviews examining the criterion-related validity of field-based fitness tests in adults. Strong evidence indicated that the 20 m shuttle run, 1.5-mile, 12 min run/walk, YMCA step, 2 km walk and 6 min walk test are valid for estimating cardiorespiratory fitness; the handgrip strength test is valid for assessing hand maximal isometric strength; and the Biering–Sørensen test to evaluate the endurance strength of hip and back muscles; however, the sit-and reach test, and its different versions, and the toe-to-touch test are not valid for assessing hamstring and lower back flexibility. We found moderate evidence supporting that the 20 m square shuttle run test is a valid test for estimating cardiorespiratory fitness. Other field-based fitness tests presented limited evidence, mainly due to few studies. We developed an evidence-based proposal of the most valid field-based fitness tests in healthy adults aged 19–64 years old.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipMinistry of Economy, Industry and Competitivenesses_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and of Innovation 2017-2020 DEP2017-88043-Res_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversity of Cadiz: Research and Knowledge Transfer Fund PPIT-FPI19es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipJunta de Andaluciaes_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherMDPIes_ES
dc.rightsAtribución 3.0 España*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectCardiorespiratory fitnesses_ES
dc.subjectMuscular strengthes_ES
dc.subjectMotor fitness and flexibilityes_ES
dc.subjectValidationes_ES
dc.subjectFitness testinges_ES
dc.subjectAdulthood es_ES
dc.titleCriterion-Related Validity of Field-Based Fitness Tests in Adults: A Systematic Reviewes_ES
dc.typejournal articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/jcm10163743
dc.type.hasVersionVoRes_ES


Ficheros en el ítem

[PDF]

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Atribución 3.0 España
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Atribución 3.0 España