Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2012
Self-regulation of exercise intensity by estimated time limit scale.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Estimated time limit: a brief review of a perceptually based scale.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of the estimated time limit scale (ETL), which deals with a subjective prediction of how long the current exercise intensity can be maintained, for regulating exercise intensity using typical estimation-production procedure. Thirty-six male athletes performed a continuous incremental test and two discontinuous tests with randomized workloads (estimation tests at 65, 75, 85 and 95% of the maximal power output, and production tests: subjects have to use the ETL values which were collected for each power during the estimation test in order to manually product the corresponding workload). The intraclass correlation coefficient for the power output between estimation and production tests is good for exercises at 75, 85 and 95% MAP (0.81, 0.85 and 0.96, respectively). Moreover, mean differences both for power output and cardiorespiratory data were not significantly different between estimation and production tests for exercises at 85 and 95% MAP. Consequently, the validity to prescribe an exercise intensity from the ETL scale is attested in these athletes particularly for high exercise intensities on cycloergometer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22009018What 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.