Sit to stand is a new reliable method for assessing strength, power, and velocity exercise in adult pediatric cancer survivors
Abstract Purpose We aimed to analyze the intra-set reliability of 5 sit-to-stand (5-STS) exercises with a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) and to determine and compare the load-velocity (L-V) profile in the STS exercise in adult pediatric cancer survivors by sex, age, body mass index,...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-025-06225-7 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract Purpose We aimed to analyze the intra-set reliability of 5 sit-to-stand (5-STS) exercises with a functional electromechanical dynamometer (FEMD) and to determine and compare the load-velocity (L-V) profile in the STS exercise in adult pediatric cancer survivors by sex, age, body mass index, and type and treatment of cancer. Method A total of 47 participants performed the 5-STS test with 5% and 20% body weight (BW) to assess intrasession reliability and analyze differences in L-V profiles by sex, age, BMI, and type and treatment of cancer. Results Very high and extremely high relative reliability was found for both the 5% STS (ICC = 0.80–0.94) and the 20% STS (ICC = 0.87–0.95) relate to average and peak force, power, and velocity. Regarding L-V profiles, significant differences were only found in relation to sex for the velocity-axis intercept and area under the line (p < 0.05). Conclusion The 5-STS test with a load of 5% and 20% of BW using a FEMD is a reliable method for assessing strength, power, and velocity exercise in adult pediatric cancer survivors. There was a relation to sex for the variables of L-V profile. Implications for cancer survivors Reliable assessments of muscular strength, like the 5-STS test using FEMD, offer a safer, less demanding alternative to maximal strength tests (e.g., 1RM), enabling precise intensity control and better-tailored rehabilitation programs. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1432-1335 |