Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10953905›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of sports medicine2000

Ratings of perceived exertion in braille: validity and reliability in production mode.

J P Buckley, R G Eston, J Sim

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of sports medicine, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J P BuckleyDepartment of Physiotherapy Studies, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom. j.p.buckley@keele.ac.uk
R G Eston
J Sim
Keele University · GBBangor University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives(a) To assess the validity and reliability of producing and reproducing a given exercise intensity during cycle ergometry using a braille version of Borg's standard 6-20 rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale, and (b) to determine whether the exercise responses of blind participants, at a given produced RPE, were similar to those reported in recognised guidelines for sighted subjects.

methodsTen healthy registered blind volunteer participants (four women, six men; mean (SD) age 23.2 (9.0) years) performed an initial graded exercise cycle test to determine maximal heart rate (HRMAx) and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2MAX). Three trials of three exercise bouts at RPEs 9, 11, and 13 were then performed in random order on three separate days of the same week, with expired air and heart rate measured continuously. Each exercise bout was followed by 10 minutes of rest. The validity of the scale as a means of producing different exercise intensities was assessed using a two factor (RPE x trial) repeated measures analysis of variance. Intertrial reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the bias +/-95% limits of agreement (95%LoA) procedure.

resultsParticipants reported no difficulty in using the braille RPE scale. When asked to produce exercise intensities equating to RPE 9, 11, and 13, they elicited mean %VO2MAX values of 47%, 53%, and 63% respectively. Analysis of variance showed no significant differences in either %HRMAx or %VO2MAX between trials at each of the three RPEs, but there was a significant difference (p<0.001) in both %HRMAx and %VO2MAX between the three RPE levels. All pairwise comparisons of the three different RPEs were significantly different (p<0.016). The ICC between the second and third trial for %HRMAx was significant (p <0.05) for all three RPEs. Similarly for %VO2MAX, the ICC was significant for RPE 9 and 11 but not 13. The 95%LoA decreased for both %HRMAx and %VO2MAX with each successive trial.

conclusionsBlind participants were successful in using a braille RPE scale to differentiate exercise intensity on a cycle ergometer. In every trial at RPE 13, all participants achieved %HRMAX and %VO2MAX levels, which fell within the recommendedrange for developing cardiorespiratory fitness. Using %HRMAx as a judge of intertrial reliability, the participants were able to repeat similar exercise intensities after two trials at each of the three RPEs (9, 11,13). The same was true for RPE 9 and 11, when %VO2MAX was used as a judge, but further trials were required to achieve similar reliability at RPE 13. A braille RPE scale can be used by healthy blind people during cycle ergometry, with similar effect to the visual analogue scale recommended for use in healthy sighted people.

Indexed as

BlindnessExercise TestPhysical ExertionAdultAnalysis of VarianceFemaleHeart RateHumansMalePhysical FitnessReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID10953905
PMCPMC1724220
OpenAlexW2160961778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.