Key result
One-minute sit-to-stand test correlates strongly with 6-minute walk test in adults with CVD.
Why the study?
The 6-Minute Walk Test requires at least a 30-meter corridor, limiting its use in telehealth and resource-limited settings. The 1-Minute Sit-to-Stand Test requires minimal space, prompting evaluation of its convergent validity and test-retest reliability against the 6-Minute Walk Test in adults with cardiovascular disease.
Does the 1-Minute Sit-to-Stand Test provide valid and reliable functional capacity assessment compared with the 6-Minute Walk Test in adults with cardiovascular disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=400)
Unclear assessor blinding across included studies
Test order randomized in 3 of 6 included studies
Yes
Does the 1-Minute Sit-to-Stand Test provide valid and reliable functional capacity assessment compared with the 6-Minute Walk Test in adults with cardiovascular disease?
The 1-Minute Sit-to-Stand Test demonstrates moderate-to-strong convergent validity (r = 0.70) and excellent test–retest reliability (ICC 0.93–0.98) compared with the 6-Minute Walk Test in adults with cardiovascular disease, supporting its use as a practical, space-efficient alternative for functional assessment in telehealth and resource-limited cardiac rehabilitation settings.
Supports 1-min sit-to-stand test as valid alternative for CVD assessment; confirms moderate-to-strong convergent validity and high reliability versus 6MWT.
Introduction: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality globally. The 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) is widely used but requires a corridor of at least 30 meters, limiting its use in telehealth and resource-limited settings. The 1-Minute Sit-to-Stand Test (1-MSTST), requiring only a standard chair and minimal space, offers a practical alternative. This study evaluated the convergent validity and test–retest reliability of the 1-MSTST versus the 6MWT in adults with CVD. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261378362) and OSF, seven electronic databases were searched through March 2026. Eligible studies compared the 1-MSTST and 6MWT in adults with CVD. Risk of bias was assessed using COSMIN, evidence certainty using modified GRADE, and correlation coefficients were pooled via Fisher's z transformation in a random-effects model (REML estimator, Knapp–Hartung adjustment). Results: Six studies (n = 400) were included (coronary artery disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, and pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with congenital heart disease), The pooled correlation was r = 0.70 (95% CI: 0.61–0.78; I² = 60.5%), indicating moderate-to-strong convergent validity. Test–retest reliability was excellent (ICC 0.93–0.98), and two studies reported discriminative cut-offs with AUCs of 0.80–0.94. Publication-bias testing was omitted due to fewer than ten pooled studies. Conclusion: The 1-MSTST shows good convergent validity and high test–retest reliability compared with the 6MWT, supporting its use as a complementary functional assessment when the 6MWT is not feasible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamila et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiovascular disease (coronary artery disease, chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, and pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with congenital heart disease) (n=400). 1-Minute Sit-to-Stand Test (1-MSTST) vs. 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) was evaluated on Convergent validity (pooled correlation coefficient between 1-MSTST repetitions and 6MWT distance) (r = 0.703, 95% CI 0.609-0.777, p=<0.001). The 1-Minute Sit-to-Stand Test showed moderate-to-strong convergent validity with the 6-Minute Walk Test (r = 0.703, 95% CI 0.609-0.777) and high reliability (ICC 0.93-0.98) in adults with CVD.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: