Feasibility study demonstrates successful testing of UULEX and 6PBRT in children, indicating reliable measures for upper limb assessment.
Objective To evaluate the feasibility and reproducibility of two field tests for upper limbs (Unsupported Upper Limb Exercise Test ‐ UULEX and 6‐min Pegboard Ring Test − 6PBRT) in children and adolescents. Methods Feasibility study. Fifteen healthy volunteers aged 6–17 years were included. Lung function was performed, followed by: Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test (CPET), UULEX and 6PBRT. The CPET was performed on an upper limb ergometer using an incremental protocol. UULEX: seated arm‐raising while holding weighted bars (0.25–2.0 kg) through graded heights; outcome = test duration (min). 6PBRT: seated transfer of rings between lower and upper pegs for 6 min; outcome = total rings moved. For all tests, peak oxygen consumption (VO₂peak) was also an outcome. The UULEX and 6PBRT were performed twice each (test and retest), 30‐min apart. Feasibility criteria were (i) no major procedural difficulties and (ii) < 15% of participants reaching ceiling or floor thresholds. Results Median age 11 [9–15] years‐old, and normal lung function (> 80% predicted). No volunteers considered the tests challenging. UULEX: Two volunteers (13%) reached the celling (13 min), none reached the floor (1 min). 6MPRT: no ceiling cases, one volunteer (6%) stopped above the floor (206 rings). The UULEX test versus retest was 9.5 [8.0−12.0] min versus 9.4 [8.2–12.0] min ( p = 0.13) (ICC = 0.93 (0.78–0.97), p < 0.001). The 6PBRT test vs. retest was 299 [258–373] rings vs. 340 [244–387] rings ( p = 0.05) (ICC = 0.97 (0.91–0.99), p < 0.001). Standard errors were < 10% of their respective medians. The CPET elicited higher VO₂peak (22.8 [19.4–26] mL/kg·min −1 ) compared to UULEX (11.8 [10.2–13.6] mL/kg) or 6PBRT (11.6 [9–12] mL/kg) ( p = 0.001). Conclusion Both UULEX and 6PBRT are feasible and reproducible field tests for upper limbs in children and adolescents, providing practical options for upper‐limb functional assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodrigues et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: