CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 499Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchReliability and Agreement in Measurement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of a new tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise training studies: TESTEX

Smart, Neil A., Waldron, Mark, Ismail, Hashbullah, Giallauria, Francesco, Vigorito, Carlo, Cornelissen, Veronique, Dieberg, Gudrun·2015·International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
DOI 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000020
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Several established tools are available to assess study quality and reporting of randomized controlled trials; however, these tools were designed with clinical intervention trials in mind. In exercise training intervention trials some of the traditional study quality criteria, such as participant or researcher blinding, are extremely difficult to implement. METHODS: We developed the Tool for the assEssment of Study qualiTy and reporting in EXercise (TESTEX) - a study quality and reporting assessment tool, designed specifically for use in exercise training studies. Our tool is a 15-point scale (5 points for study quality and 10 points for reporting) and addresses previously unmentioned quality assessment criteria specific to exercise training studies. RESULTS: There were no systematic differences between the summated TESTEX scores of each observer [H(2)=0.392, P=0.822]. There was a significant association between the summated TESTEX scores of the three observers, with almost perfect agreement between observers 1 and 2 [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.97, P<0.001], observers 1 and 3 (ICC= 0.96, 95% CI 0.89-0.98, P<0.001) and observers 2 and 3 (ICC=0.91, 95% CI 0.75-0.96, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The TESTEX scale is a new, reliable tool, specific to exercise scientists, that facilitates a comprehensive review of exercise training trials.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000020

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Jadad, 1996, Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary Control Clin T, rials, 17, 1
  2. Ismail, 2013, Clinical outcomes and cardiovascular responses to different exercise training intensities in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis., J Am Coll Cardiol Heart Fail, 1, 514

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 499

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Smart, N. A., Waldron, M., Ismail, H., Giallauria, F., Vigorito, C., Cornelissen, V., & Dieberg, G.
Affiliations
  • Federico II University Hospital (IT)
  • University of New England (AU)
Corresponding author
Smart, Neil A.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2015-03
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
9-18
ISSN
  • 1744-1595 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-1609
DOI
10.1097/xeb.0000000000000020
OpenAlex
W2315157830
Cited by
499
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2
FWCI
10.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • St Mary's University Repository (ULCC) (acceptedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
study quality assessment, reporting quality, randomized controlled trials, observer agreement, inter-rater reliability
MeSH terms
Exercise Therapy, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review