Influence of type 1 diabetes on the postural control of women in the third gestational trimester

Valério, Paola Marini; Gonçalves, Vanessa Ellen; Zordão, Catarina Clapis; Rezende, Monique Silva; Moisés, Elaine Christine Dantas; Guirro, Elaine Caldeira de Olveira

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105062

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding aim 1, 99 tests (including 75 different protocols) were used to assess CRF,8 12 13 18 27–108 28 (including 16 different protocols) to assess muscular fitness,8 12 13 61 86 109–122 14 (including 13 different protocols) to assess flexibility,12 13 110 114 123–127 45 tests (including 40 different protocols) to assess balance,110 116 128–167 2 tests using the same protocol to assess speed168 169 and 3 tests using the same protocol were multidimensional 168–170. No results were found for other PF components such as agility or coordination.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, standing position varied between articles. Ten articles maintained a standing posture with feet separated,116 131 132 147 158 159 162 165–167 one with feet together,129 two used mixed protocols,128 160 one with medial malleoli separated130 and four did not mention the standing posture 138 149 163 164. Moreover, three articles used protocols with eyes open132 149 162 exclusively, eight articles used mixed protocols with eyes open and closed, one used visual target and visual tasks164 and six did not specify whether participants kept their eyes closed or opened.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of physical fitness during pregnancy: validity and reliability of fitness tests, and relationship with maternal and neonatal health – a systematic review

Romero‐Gallardo

Roldan-Reoyo

Castro‐Piñero

et al. 2022

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo systematically review studies evaluating one or more components of physical fitness (PF) in pregnant women, to answer two research questions: (1) What tests have been employed to assess PF in pregnant women? and (2) What is the validity and reliability of these tests and their relationship with maternal and neonatal health?DesignA systematic review.Data sourcesPubMed and Web of Science.Eligibility criteriaOriginal English or Spanish full-text articles in a group of healthy pregnant women which at least one component of PF was assessed (field based or laboratory tests).ResultsA total of 149 articles containing a sum of 191 fitness tests were included. Among the 191 fitness tests, 99 (ie, 52%) assessed cardiorespiratory fitness through 75 different protocols, 28 (15%) assessed muscular fitness through 16 different protocols, 14 (7%) assessed flexibility through 13 different protocols, 45 (24%) assessed balance through 40 different protocols, 2 assessed speed with the same protocol and 3 were multidimensional tests using one protocol. A total of 19 articles with 23 tests (13%) assessed either validity (n=4), reliability (n=6) or the relationship of PF with maternal and neonatal health (n=16).ConclusionPhysical fitness has been assessed through a wide variety of protocols, mostly lacking validity and reliability data, and no consensus exists on the most suitable fitness tests to be performed during pregnancy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018117554.

show abstract