Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19526366›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2009

Accuracy, reliability, linearity of Accutrend and Lactate Pro versus EBIO plus analyzer.

Carlo Baldari, Valerio Bonavolontà, Gian Pietro Emerenziani, Maria Chiara Gallotta, Antonio José Silva, Laura Guidetti

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Carlo BaldariUnit of Sport Sciences, Department of Health Sciences, University of Rome Foro Italico, Piazza Lauro De Bosis 15, Rome 00194, Italy. carlo.baldari@iusm.it
Valerio Bonavolontà
Gian Pietro Emerenziani
Maria Chiara Gallotta
Antonio José Silva
Laura Guidetti
Foro Italico University of Rome · ITUniversity of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accuracy, reliability and linearity in two hand-portable lactate analyzers, the Accutrend Lactate (AL) and the Lactate Pro (LP) versus the EBIO plus analyzer (EP) were evaluated. For accuracy, duplicate samples recorded on both the AL and LP revealed an overall average difference versus EP (P < 0.05). The limits of agreement between AL and EP were -0.7 to +1.0, and -1.3 to +1.5 mM between LP and EP. Reliability of AL and LP was assessed at different lactate concentrations; coefficient of variation ranged between 1.8 and 3.3% for AL and between 2.8 and 5.0% for LP. AL and LP had a good reliability for intra-, inter-analyzers, and between test strips (ICC r = 0.999). The linearity was determined versus the EP as reference. The slope coefficient of AL (1.0394) was closer to 1 than that of LP (1.1053). On these bases, AL and LP can be individually considered suitable for the sports research field.

Indexed as

Blood Chemical AnalysisEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisFemaleHumansLactic AcidMaleReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityLactic Acid

Identifiers

PMID19526366
OpenAlexW1990680297

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.