No abstract

BackgroundIn field tests, clinical guidelines recommend performing two tests due to the learning effect; however, in the 1-minute sit-to-stand test (1min-STST) it is not clear that this effect exists.ObjectiveTo determine the learning effect of the 1min-STST in post-COVID-19 patients.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in patients recovering from COVID-19 pneumonia, older than 18 years. The 1min-STST was performed twice with a difference of 30 min. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the learning effect and the Bland-Altman plot was used to evaluate agreement between both tests.ResultsForty-two patients were included (mean age 53.8±10.3 years; 52% female). Twenty-nine patients were hospitalised with a median of 15 (4–27) days. Only seven patients required ICU admission. The median of repetitions in the 1min-STST was 22 (19–25.3) and 22.5 (20–25) in the first and second tests, without significant differences. None of the physiological variables evaluated showed a significant difference between both tests. We found an ICC of 0.984 (IC95 0.971–0.992). Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of −0.38 for the test-retest measurement error.ConclusionThe 1min-STST is a repeatable test without differences between the first and second tests. A single test is necessary to assess exercise tolerance in post-COVID-19 patients with this field test.

Many people recovering from an acute episode of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) experience prolonged symptoms. Exercise testing is a feasible and cost-effective option for assessing exercise tolerance, fatigue, and dyspnea related to effort. Being that the Chester step test (CST) is a progressive, submaximal test for predicting aerobic capacity, it could be a good option to explore. This study aimed to determine the reproducibility of CST for assessing exertional desaturation and exercise capacity in patients post-COVID-19 disease. A cross-sectional study was conducted on post-COVID-19 patients. Two attempts of the CST were performed. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess agreement between the two tests. Forty-two symptomatic post-COVID-19 patients were included, the mean age was 53.8 ± 10.3 years, and 52% were female. There was no significant difference between both tests (p = 0.896). Twenty-four percent of participants (10 cases) had a clinically significant decrease in SpO2 at the first assessment, compared to 30.1% (13 cases) at the second, with no significant difference. An ICC of 0.993 (95% CI: 0.987 to 0.996) was obtained for the total number of steps in the CST.