Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

The 5-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Test as an Outcome Measure for Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Subjects With Asthma

Elisabetta Zampogna, Patrizia Pignatti, Nicolino Ambrosino, Francesca Cherubino, Anna Maria Fadda, Martina Zappa, Antonio Spanevello and Dina Visca
Respiratory Care May 2021, 66 (5) 769-776; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.08452
Elisabetta Zampogna
Division of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Tradate, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Patrizia Pignatti
Allergy and Immunology Unit, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Pavia, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicolino Ambrosino
Division of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Montescano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francesca Cherubino
Division of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Tradate, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anna Maria Fadda
Division of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Tradate, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martina Zappa
Department of Medicine and Surgery, Respiratory Diseases, University of Insubria, Varese. Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Antonio Spanevello
Division of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Tradate, Italy.
Department of Medicine and Surgery, Respiratory Diseases, University of Insubria, Varese. Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dina Visca
Division of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, IRCCS, Tradate, Italy.
Department of Medicine and Surgery, Respiratory Diseases, University of Insubria, Varese. Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The 5-repetition sit-to-stand test (5STS) is valid and responsive in subjects with COPD, but there is a lack of information in subjects with asthma. We aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the 5STS as an outcome measure of pulmonary rehabilitation in subjects with asthma as compared to subjects with COPD.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective evaluation of subjects with asthma or COPD who underwent pulmonary rehabilitation. Both before and after in-patient pulmonary rehabilitation, subjects underwent the 5STS and the 6-min walk test; dyspnea was assessed with the Medical Research Council scale and the Barthel Index for dyspnea, and the burden of symptoms was assessed with the COPD Assessment Test.

RESULTS: Of 475 patients admitted during the study period, 103 subjects with asthma and 108 with COPD were included. After pulmonary rehabilitation, the 5STS improved significantly in both populations (by a median value of –1.7 s [interquartile range –4.2 to –0.5] and –1.1 s [interquartile range –3.4 to 0.0] in subjects with asthma and COPD, respectively; P < .001 for both, P = .17 between groups) independent of body mass index, as did other outcome measures. The baseline 5STS correlated slightly but significantly with age, the 6-min walk test, and the Barthel Index for dyspnea in both populations, whereas it correlated significantly with the Medical Research Council scale only in subjects with asthma and correlated with COPD Assessment Test only in subjects with COPD. No significant correlations between changes in the 5STS and in other assessed outcome measures before and after pulmonary rehabilitation were observed in subjects with asthma, whereas changes in the 5STS correlated slightly but significantly only with changes in 6-min walk test in subjects with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS: The 5STS was a reliable outcome measure of pulmonary rehabilitation in subjects with asthma. It must be specifically assessed and may be included in the tools for assessment of effects of pulmonary rehabilitation also in these patients.

  • asthma
  • body mass index
  • COPD
  • exercise capacity
  • exercise training
  • pulmonary rehabilitation

Introduction

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease that affects hundreds of millions of people globally. It is a heterogeneous disease characterized by chronic airway inflammation with a history of respiratory symptoms such as wheezing, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough that varies over time and in intensity, together with variable expiratory air flow limitation.1 Patients with asthma may avoid or limit their physical activity because of fear of symptoms that may worsen during or after exercise.2

Pulmonary rehabilitation has strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dyspnea and improving exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in subjects with COPD.3 Therefore, current guidelines for COPD recommend pulmonary rehabilitation programs, including the key component of exercise training, in the comprehensive management of disease.4 In patients with asthma, pulmonary rehabilitation has been demonstrated to improve exercise capacity, disease control (ie, use of rescue medication or number of emergency service admissions), and HRQOL, and to reduce dyspnea, anxiety, and depression.5,6

Outcomes of pulmonary rehabilitation are usually evaluated on the basis of exercise capacity by means of the cardiopulmonary exercise test or so-called field tests, such as the 6-min walk test (6MWT).7 Moving from sitting to standing is a common activity of daily living. The 5-repetition sit-to-stand test (5STS) is a test of lower limb function, assessing the fastest time required to stand 5 times from a chair with arms folded. The test has been validated in healthy community-dwelling adults and is reliable, valid, and responsive in subjects with COPD, with an estimated minimal clinical important difference of 1.7 s.8 The 5STS is considered a practical and functional outcome measure suitable for use in most health care settings. To our knowledge, there is a lack of validation studies in subjects with asthma. We hypothesized that the 5STS would be as useful in patients with asthma as in those with COPD as an outcome measure of pulmonary rehabilitation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the 5STS as an outcome measure of pulmonary rehabilitation in subjects with asthma as compared to subjects with COPD.

QUICK LOOK

Current knowledge

Prescription of pulmonary rehabilitation is commonly based on evaluation of exercise capacity by means of the cardiopulmonary exercise test or field tests. The 5-repetition sit-to-stand test (5STS) is a test of lower limb function used to assess the fastest time spent to stand 5 times from a chair. The test has been validated in healthy community-dwelling adults and is reliable, valid, and responsive in patients with chronic respiratory diseases, with an estimated minimal clinical important difference of 1.7 s. It is considered a practical functional outcome measure suitable for use in most health care settings.

What this paper contributes to our knowledge

The 5STS improved significantly after pulmonary rehabilitation in subjects with asthma as well as in subjects with COPD. The changes in 5STS after pulmonary rehabilitation did not correlate with changes in any other outcome measure, such as dyspnea, functional limitation, and symptom burden. Therefore, the 5STS cannot be used as a surrogate for other outcome measures.

Methods

This retrospective study included subjects with asthma or COPD admitted consecutively for an in-patient pulmonary rehabilitation program from January to December 2019 at Istituti Clinici Scientifici (ICS) Maugeri of Tradate, Italy, a reference institution for pulmonary rehabilitation. All medical records of subjects meeting the inclusion criteria were retrospectively analyzed to complement available records in the Hospital Informatics System. The Ethics Committee of ICS Maugeri approved the study protocol (#1078). Subjects gave their informed consent to the scientific use of their data.

The inclusion criteria were patients age ≥ 18 y, diagnosis of asthma according to the current Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines,1 diagnosis and severity of COPD as confirmed with spirometry according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines,4 and indications for pulmonary rehabilitation on the basis of reported limitations of activities of daily life or worsening of dyspnea during exercise.9–11 At admission, all subjects were in stable condition for at least 30 d as assessed by the absence of worsening of symptoms (ie, no change in dyspnea, cough, or sputum beyond day-to-day variability that would have been sufficient to warrant a change in their regular management). All subjects received their regular treatment for their disease stage according to current guidelines.1,4 Exclusion criteria from pulmonary rehabilitation were oncological, neurological, ischemic cardiovascular diseases; heart failure; or inability or refusal to perform evaluations or pulmonary rehabilitation.

A multidisciplinary team of chest physicians, nurses, physical therapists, dieticians, and psychologists offered care. The standard in-patient multidisciplinary program was the same for both populations and included the optimization of drug therapy, specific education plans for each disease, nutritional programs, psychosocial counseling when appropriate, and at least twelve 30-min daily sessions over a period of 3 weeks; sessions consisted of supervised exercise training according to Maltais12 until the subject could perform 30 min of continuous cycling at 50–70% of the maximum load calculated on the basis of the baseline 6MWT according to Luxton et al.13 The work load was increased by 5 watts when subjects scored their dyspnea or leg fatigue as < 3 on a modified 10-point Borg scale.14 The work load was unchanged if the Borg score was 4 or 5 and was reduced for scores > 5. Resistance training for the upper limbs (mainly biceps and triceps) and lower limbs (mainly quadriceps and glutes) with weights was also performed (5 times/week for 20–30 min).

The following data were reported from subjects' discharge data records: diagnosis; demographics (eg, age, gender); anthropometrics (ie, body mass index [BMI])15; reported number and diagnosis of comorbidities according to the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, including the Comorbidity Index and the Severity Index16; lung function assessed according to the American Thoracic Society guidelines17 by means of a body plethysmograph using predicted values according to Quanjer.18

Several evaluations were performed and recorded before pulmonary rehabilitation (ie, T0) and after pulmonary rehabilitation (ie, T1). The 6MWT was conducted according to accepted standards7 using the predicted values of Enright and Sherrill.19 The best of 2 consecutive performances (2 h apart) conducted with pulse oximetry monitoring in a corridor 30 m long and 3 m wide under quiet conditions and without distractive stimuli was recorded for analysis. At the beginning and at the end of walking, subjective sensations of both dyspnea and leg fatigue were assessed with a modified Borg scale but were not reported in the database.14 In the 5STS test, seated subjects were asked to come forward on the chair seat until the feet were flat on the floor and to fold their arms across the chest. Subjects were instructed to stand up all the way and sit down landing firmly, as quickly as possible, 5 times without using the arms. After a learning performance, the time spent in a second performance was recorded.20 Details are described in Table 1. Dyspnea was evaluated with the Medical Research Council scale21 and the Barthel Index for dyspnea.22 The symptom burden was assessed with the COPD Assessment Test.23,24 Data are presented as mean ± SD or median (interquartile range [IQR]) when variables were not normally distributed.

The sample size was calculated based on the effect size of the study in subjects with COPD.8 A total number of 90 patients was required to detect variations in terms of 5STS outcomes corresponding to Cohen's d = 0.32,8 with a statistical power of 0.85 assuming a significance level of P = .05 (2-sided t test for paired samples). Statistical power calculations were performed with G*Power software 3.1.9.2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Details of the 5-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Test

The primary outcome measure was the change in the 5STS measurements after pulmonary rehabilitation. Secondary outcomes were the correlations of such changes with changes in the other assessed outcome measures and correlations of baseline 5STS measurements with other baseline outcome measures. The Student t test and the Mann-Whitney test were used to compare the populations for quantitative variables following their parametric and non-parametric distribution, respectively. The Student t test or the Wilcoxon test for paired samples were used to evaluate data before and after pulmonary rehabilitation. The chi-square test was used for categorical variables. The Spearman test was used to check the data correlation. P < .05 was considered as significant. SPSS 20 was used for all these statistical computations (IBM, Armonk, New York).

Results

Of 475 patients admitted during the study period, 103 subjects with asthma and 108 subjects with COPD fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The study flow chart is shown in Figure 1. Demographic, anthropometric, physiological, and clinical characteristics of the subjects are shown in Table 2. Subjects with asthma were slightly younger and more likely to be female, to have a higher BMI (31.1% of them had a BMI > 30 kg/m2), and to have more severe dyspnea as assessed with the Medical Research Council scale. This group also exhibited slightly better 6MWT values expressed as percentage of predicted values. No differences in 5STS were found when stratified according to disease severity.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flow chart.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Subject Characteristics

As shown in Table 3, after pulmonary rehabilitation the 5STS and other assessed outcome measures significantly improved in both populations. No changes in outcomes after pulmonary rehabilitation were significantly different between the 2 populations.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3.

Significant Differences in Outcome Measures Before and After Pulmonary Rehabilitation

There was no significant difference in age between subjects with asthma and BMI < 30 kg/m2 and those with asthma and BMI > 30 kg/m2 (70.9 ± 9.3 y vs 69.8 ± 8.2 y, P = .66). The difference between baseline 5STS measures (P = .43) and 5STS measures after pulmonary rehabilitation (P = .28) were not significantly different across subjects with asthma according to BMI: from 15.9 s (IQR 12.7–17.1) to 12.6 s (IQR 11.2–14.4), P = .43; and from 15.5 s (IQR 12.7–17.3) to 13.3 s (IQR 11.6–15.1), P = .28, in subjects with BMI < 30 kg/m2 and in those with BMI > 30 kg/m2, respectively. As shown in Table 4, the changes in all other assessed outcome measures after pulmonary rehabilitation were not significantly different between the 2 populations of subjects with asthma as well. There were also no significant differences in any outcome measure between baseline and after pulmonary rehabilitation in subjects with COPD according to BMI.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4.

Differences in Outcome Measures in Subjects With Asthma After Pulmonary Rehabilitation

Table 5 shows that the baseline 5STS correlated slightly but significantly with age, baseline 6MWT distance, and Barthel Index for dyspnea in both populations, whereas it correlated significantly with the Medical Research Council scale only in subjects with asthma and with the COPD Assessment Test only in subjects with COPD. As shown in Table 6, no significant correlation between changes in 5STS and in other assessed outcome measures was observed in subjects with asthma, whereas the changes in 5STS correlated slightly but significantly only with changes in 6MWT in subjects with COPD.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 5.

Significant Correlations Between Baseline 5STS and Other Outcome Measures

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 6.

Correlations Between Changes in 5STS and Other Outcome Measures Before and After Pulmonary Rehabilitation

Discussion

Based on a search of the literature, to our knowledge this study is the first to show that outcomes of the 5STS significantly improve after pulmonary rehabilitation in subjects with asthma. The improvement in 5STS outcomes after pulmonary rehabilitation does not correlate with changes in any other outcome measure of pulmonary rehabilitation; therefore this test cannot be used as a surrogate for other pulmonary rehabilitation outcome measures and cannot be predicted by other outcome measures.

Moving from a sitting to a standing position is performed daily by active people, and significant functional limitations can occur when the ability to rise from a seat is impaired. The 5STS test indirectly assesses exercise tolerance, lower limb muscle function, and balance. The 5STS has been shown in subjects with COPD to correlate well with other objective physical performance measures such as 6MWT, HRQOL, and dyspnea as well as prognostic indices.25–28 A recent study by Sánchez-Martínez et al29 involving subjects with COPD reported that poor performance on the 5STS is one of the most relevant independent predictors of transitions to new states of low physical activity.

It is hard to categorize the 5STS as a strength test rather than an endurance test. Jones et al8 reported that outcomes of the 5STS correlated significantly with measures of exercise capacity, lower limb strength, HRQOL, and dyspnea. Furthermore, performance of sit-to-stand tests is associated significantly with a range of sensorimotor, balance, and psychological factors in older, community-dwelling people.30

It could be hypothesized that the 5STS is a valid surrogate for the 6MWT, especially when space and time are limited. Ozalevli et al25 reported a correlation of the 1-min sit-to-stand test with 6MWT (r = 0.75, P < .001), stronger than the correlation between 5STS and 6MWT noted in our study. There is insufficient scientific background at this time to explain the reason why the 1-min sit-to-stand has a better correlation with the 6MWT than the 5STS. On the basis of our results we can only hypothesize that the shorter duration of the 5STS makes it less sensitive than the 1-min test.

In addition, as an original result, our results indicate that changes in 5STS after pulmonary rehabilitation did not correlate with the changes in 6MWT. The 2 tests are therefore not interchangeable as outcome measures for pulmonary rehabilitation. The 5STS test did not correlate with any index of symptom burden like the COPD Assessment Test, which is an outcome measure commonly used in both populations we studied.24 These results indicate that the measures evaluate different effects of pulmonary rehabilitation. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a surrogate for other outcome measures in the pulmonary rehabilitation setting, and the 5STS cannot be predicted by other outcome measures.

Patients with both obesity and asthma have more symptoms, greater difficulty in controlling disease, more frequent and severe exacerbations, decreased response to both reliever and control medications, and worse HRQOL than patients without obesity, and improvement in uncontrolled symptoms and in HRQOL are reported after weight loss as well as with medical therapy.31,32 In the last 20 years, the link between asthma and obesity has been highlighted, and this connection can strongly influence the clinical management of respiratory symptoms. An increased prevalence of asthma33 has been reported in both subjects who are underweight and those who are obese,34 and most studies in adults with asthma show an increased prevalence of subjects with obesity compared to normal population, suggesting that obesity could increase the risk of asthma.35

The mean BMI of our subjects with asthma was > 30 kg/m2; in 31.1% of our subjects, BMI was > 30 kg/m2. Baseline 5STS outcomes were not significantly different between the subjects with BMI above or below 30 kg/m2, and we noted similar improvements in all of the assessed outcome measures in these 2 groups. Our results are in line with a previous randomized trial in subjects with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and asthma with suboptimal control of respiratory symptoms.36

In our study, the same exercise training protocol was used for subjects with asthma and those with COPD. Both GOLD4 and GINA guidelines1 recommend physical activity and pulmonary rehabilitation without any specific indication of programs or schedules. Several studies have reported the usefulness of exercise training programs used for patients with COPD in treating patients with asthma and other diseases, and in our study both populations saw benefits.2,6,37,38

This study has several limitations. It is a retrospective analysis with a COPD population serving as the control group. It would be interesting to have a control group of subjects who were not involved in any rehabilitation program. However, our sample size provided sufficient power to answer the research question, covering a wide range of severity; and failing to perform pulmonary rehabilitation in these subjects would have been unethical given the unquestionable effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in these subjects. In addition, we did not perform any test of peripheral muscle function to compare with the 5STS outcomes.

Conclusions

Outcomes of the 5STS improved significantly after pulmonary rehabilitation in subjects with asthma as well as in subjects with COPD. The changes in 5STS outcomes after pulmonary rehabilitation did not correlate with changes in any other assessed outcome (ie, the Medical Research Council scale, the Barthel Index for dyspnea, the COPD Assessment Test, or the 6MWT). Therefore, the 5STS test cannot be used as a surrogate for other outcome measures in the pulmonary rehabilitation setting, nor can 5STS outcomes be predicted by other outcome measures. The 5STS must be assessed specifically, and it may be included as a tool for the assessment of effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on functional limitations in subjects with asthma.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Elisabetta Zampogna MSc RRT, via Roncaccio 16, 21049 Tradate, VA, Italy. E-mail: elisabetta.zampogna{at}icsmaugeri.it
  • Copyright © 2021 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    Global Initiative for Asthma. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. Available at: https://ginasthma.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/GINA-2020-full-report_-final-_wms.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Donner CF,
    2. Ambrosino N,
    3. Goldstein RS
    1. Zampogna E,
    2. Zappa M,
    3. Spanevello A,
    4. Visca D
    . Is there any role for pulmonary rehabilitation in asthma? In: Donner CF, Ambrosino N, Goldstein RS, editors. Pulmonary Rehabilitation, 2nd Ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2020:355–358.
  3. 3.↵
    1. McCarthy B,
    2. Casey D,
    3. Devane D,
    4. Murphy K,
    5. Murphy E,
    6. Lacasse Y
    . Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;2:CD003793.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Global Strategy for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global strategy for prevention, diagnosis and management of COPD 2020. Available at: http://goldcopd.org/gold-reports. Accessed August 7, 2020.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Carson KV,
    2. Chandratilleke MG,
    3. Picot J,
    4. Brinn MP,
    5. Esterman AJ,
    6. Smith BJ
    . Physical training for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;30(9):CD001116.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Zampogna E,
    2. Paneroni M,
    3. Cherubino F,
    4. Pignatti P,
    5. Rudi M,
    6. Casu G,
    7. et al
    . Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation program on persistent asthma stratified for severity. Respir Care 2019;64(12):1523–1530.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Holland AE,
    2. Spruit MA,
    3. Troosters T,
    4. Puhan MA,
    5. Pepin V,
    6. Saey D,
    7. et al
    . An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J 2014;44(6):1428–1446.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Jones SE,
    2. Kon SS,
    3. Canavan JL,
    4. Patel MS,
    5. Clark AL,
    6. Nolan CM,
    7. et al
    . The five-repetition sit-to-stand test as a functional outcome measure in COPD. Thorax 2013;68(11):1015–1020.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Zampogna E,
    2. Zappa M,
    3. Spanevello A,
    4. Visca D
    . Pulmonary rehabilitation and asthma. Front Pharmacol 2020;11:542.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.
    1. Lingner H,
    2. Ernst S,
    3. Groβhennig A,
    4. Djahangiri N,
    5. Scheub D,
    6. Wittmann M,
    7. Schultz K
    . Asthma control and health-related quality of life one year after inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation: the ProKAR Study. J Asthma 2015;52(6):614–621.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Spruit MA,
    2. Singh SJ,
    3. Garvey C,
    4. ZuWallack R,
    5. Nici L,
    6. Rochester C,
    7. et al
    . An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: key concepts and advances in pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;188(8):e13–e64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Maltais F,
    2. LeBlanc P,
    3. Jobin J,
    4. Bérubé C,
    5. Bruneau J,
    6. Carrier L,
    7. et al
    . Intensity of training and physiologic adaptation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155(2):555–561.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Luxton N,
    2. Alison JA,
    3. Wu J,
    4. Mackey MG
    . Relationship between field walking tests and incremental cycle ergometry in COPD. Respirology 2008;13(6):856–862.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Borg G
    . Psychophysical basis of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1982;14(5):377–381.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. The Practical Guide: Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults (NIH Publication No. 00-4084). Available at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/prctgd_c.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2020.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Linn BS,
    2. Linn MW,
    3. Gurel L
    . Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc 1968;16(5):622–626.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Celli BR,
    2. MacNee W
    , ATS/ERS Task Force. Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: a summary of the ATS/ERS position paper. Eur Respir J 2004;23(6):932–946.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Quanjer PH
    . Working party on standardization of lung function test. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir 1983;19(Suppl 5):7–10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Enright PL,
    2. Sherrill DL
    . Reference equations for the six-minute walk in healthy adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;158(5 Pt 1):1384–1387.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Bohannon RW
    . Reference values for the five-repetitions sit-to-stand test: a descriptive meta-analysis of data from elders. Percept Mot Skills 2006;103(1):215–222.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Fletcher CM
    . Standardised questionnaires on respiratory symptoms: a statement prepared and approved by the MRC Committee on the aetiology of chronic bronchitis (MRC breathlessness score). Br Med J 1960;2(5213):1665.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Vitacca M,
    2. Paneroni M,
    3. Baiardi P,
    4. De Carolis V,
    5. Zampogna E,
    6. Belli S,
    7. et al
    . Development of a Barthel Index based on dyspnea for patients with respiratory diseases. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2016;11:1199–1206.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Jones PW,
    2. Harding G,
    3. Berry P,
    4. Wiklund I,
    5. Chen WH,
    6. Kline Leidy N
    . Development and first validation of the COPD Assessment Test. Eur Resp J 2009;34(3):648–654.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Kurashima K,
    2. Takaku Y,
    3. Ohta C,
    4. Takayanagi N,
    5. Yanagisawa T,
    6. Sugita Y
    . COPD assessment test and severity of airflow limitation in patients with asthma, COPD, and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2016;11:479–487.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Ozalevli S,
    2. Ozden A,
    3. Itil O,
    4. Akkoclu A
    . Comparison of the sit-to-stand test with 6min walk test in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med 2007;101(2):286–293.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.
    1. Zanini A,
    2. Aiello M,
    3. Cherubino F,
    4. Zampogna E,
    5. Azzola A,
    6. Chetta A,
    7. Spanevello A
    . The one repetition maximum test and the sit-to-stand test in the assessment of a specific pulmonary rehabilitation program on peripheral muscle strength in COPD patients. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2015;10:2423–2430.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.
    1. Butcher SJ,
    2. Pikaluk BJ,
    3. Chura RL,
    4. Walkner MJ,
    5. Farthing JP,
    6. Marciniuk DD
    . Associations between isokinetic muscle strength, high-level functional performance, and physiological parameters in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2012;7:537–542.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Iwakura M,
    2. Okura K,
    3. Shibata K,
    4. Kawagoshi A,
    5. Sugawara K,
    6. Takahashi H,
    7. Shioya T
    . Relationship between balance and physical activity measured by an activity monitor in elderly COPD patients. COPD 2016;11:1505–1514.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Sánchez-Martínez MP,
    2. Bernabeu-Mora R,
    3. García-Vidal JA,
    4. Benítez-Martínez J,
    5. de Oliveira-Sousa SL,
    6. Medina-Mirapeix F
    . Patterns and predictors of low physical activity in patients with stable COPD: a longitudinal study. Ther Adv Respir Dis 2020;14:1753466620909772.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Lord SR,
    2. Murray SM,
    3. Chapman K,
    4. Munro B,
    5. Tiedemann A
    . Sit-to-stand performance depends on sensation, speed, balance, and psychological status in addition to strength in older people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2002;57(8):M539–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Santos LM,
    2. Ramos B,
    3. Almeida J,
    4. Loureiro CC,
    5. Cordeiro CR
    . The impact of weight loss beyond lung function: benefit with respect to asthma outcomes. Pulmonology 2019;25(6):313–319.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Oliveira MJ,
    2. Vieira M,
    3. Coutinho D,
    4. Ladeira I,
    5. Pascoal I,
    6. Ferreira J,
    7. et al
    . Severe asthma in obese patients: Improvement of lung function after treatment with omalizumab. Pulmonology 2019;25(1):15–20.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Freitas PD,
    2. Xavier RF,
    3. McDonald VM,
    4. Gibson PG,
    5. Cordova-Rivera L,
    6. Furlanetto KC
    . Identification of asthma phenotypes based on extrapulmonary treatable traits. Eur Respir J 2020 [Epub ahead of print].
  34. 34.↵
    1. Carpaij OA,
    2. van den Berge M
    . The asthma-obesity relationship: underlying mechanisms and treatment implications. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2018;24(1):42–49.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Ford ES
    . The epidemiology of obesity and asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005;115(5):897–909.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Türk Y,
    2. Theel W,
    3. van Huisstede A,
    4. van de Geijn GM,
    5. Birnie E,
    6. Hiemstra PS,
    7. et al
    . Short-term and long-term effect of a high-intensity pulmonary rehabilitation programme in obese patients with asthma: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J 2020;56(1):1901820.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Sahin H,
    2. Naz I
    . Comparing the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with uncontrolled and partially controlled asthma. J Asthma 2019;56(1):87–94.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    1. Holland AE,
    2. Wadell K,
    3. Spruit MA
    . How to adapt the pulmonary rehabilitation programme to patients with chronic respiratory disease other than COPD. Eur Respir Rev 2013;22(130):577–586.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 66 (5)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 66, Issue 5
1 May 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The 5-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Test as an Outcome Measure for Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Subjects With Asthma
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The 5-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Test as an Outcome Measure for Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Subjects With Asthma
Elisabetta Zampogna, Patrizia Pignatti, Nicolino Ambrosino, Francesca Cherubino, Anna Maria Fadda, Martina Zappa, Antonio Spanevello, Dina Visca
Respiratory Care May 2021, 66 (5) 769-776; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08452

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The 5-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Test as an Outcome Measure for Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Subjects With Asthma
Elisabetta Zampogna, Patrizia Pignatti, Nicolino Ambrosino, Francesca Cherubino, Anna Maria Fadda, Martina Zappa, Antonio Spanevello, Dina Visca
Respiratory Care May 2021, 66 (5) 769-776; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08452
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • asthma
  • body mass index
  • COPD
  • exercise capacity
  • exercise training
  • pulmonary rehabilitation

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire