Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2011
Are fixed-rate step tests medically safe for assessing physical fitness?
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the effectiveness of two cardiovascular prevention programmes for highly educated professionals in general practice: a randomised clinical trial.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2013Trial
- Assessment and repeatability of aerobic capacity using the Chester Step Test among current, former, and never smokers.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- StepTest4all: Improving the Prediction of Cardiovascular Capacity Assessment in Young Adults.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
- Validation of StepTest4all for Assessing Cardiovascular Capacity in Young Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Temporal trends in step test performance for Chinese adults between 2000 and 2014.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2021Article
- The Validity of the YMCA 3-Minute Step Test for Estimating Maximal Oxygen Uptake in Healthy Korean and Vietnamese Adults.Journal of lifestyle medicine · 2020Article
- Personality of Belgian physicians in a clinical leadership program.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Step oximetry test: a validation study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2018Article
- The Reliability and Validity of a Modified Squat Test to Predict Cardiopulmonary Fitness in Healthy Older Men.BioMed research international · 2018Article
- Validity of Submaximal Step Tests to Estimate Maximal Oxygen Uptake in Healthy Adults.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2016Review
- Development and validation of an automated step ergometer.Journal of human kinetics · 2014Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Dutch Physical Activity Questionnaires for Children (PAQ-C) and Adolescents (PAQ-A).Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2014Article
- Validity of the step test for exercise prescription: no extension to a larger age range.Journal of aging and physical activity · 2013Article
- Problems of medical supervision and physiological validity encountered with fixed-rate step tests.European journal of applied physiology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2max)) can be predicted by fixed-rate step tests. However, it remains to be analyzed as to what exercise intensities are reached during such tests to address medical safety. In this study, we compared the physiological response to a standardized fixed-rate step test with maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). One hundred and thirteen healthy adults executed a maximal CPET on bike, followed by a standardized fixed-rate step test 1 week later. During these tests, heart rate (HR) and VO(2) were monitored continuously. From the maximal CPET, the ventilatory threshold (VT) was calculated. Next, the physiological response between maximal CPET and step testing was compared. The step test intensity was 85 ± 24% CPET VO(2max) and 88 ± 11% CPET HR(max) (VO(2max) and HR(max) were significantly different between CPET and step testing; p < 0.01). In 41% of the subjects, step test exercise intensities >95% CPET VO(2max) were noted. A greater step testing exercise intensity (%CPET VO(2max)) was independently related to higher body mass index, and lower body height, exercise capacity (p < 0.05). Standardized fixed-rate step tests elicit vigorous exercise intensities, especially in small, obese, and/or physically deconditioned subjects. Medical supervision might therefore be required during these tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21373866What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.