ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2012
Reproducibility of an aerobic endurance test for nonexpert swimmers.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of an equation for estimating maximal oxygen consumption of nonexpert adult swimmers.Open access journal of sports medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to verify the reproduction of an aerobic test to determine nonexpert swimmers' resistance.
methodsThe sample consisted of 24 male swimmers (age: 22.79 ± 3.90 years; weight: 74.72 ± 11.44 kg; height: 172.58 ± 4.99 cm; and fat percentage: 15.19% ± 3.21%), who swim for 1 hour three times a week. A new instrument was used in this study (a Progressive Swim Test): the swimmer wore an underwater MP3 player and increased their swimming speed on hearing a beep after every 25 meters. Each swimmer's heart rate was recorded before the test (BHR) and again after the test (AHR). The rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and the number of laps performed (NLP) were also recorded. The sample size was estimated using G*Power software (v 3.0.10; Franz Faul, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany). The descriptive values were expressed as mean and standard deviation. After confirming the normality of the data using both the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene tests, a paired t-test was performed to compare the data. The Pearson's linear correlation (r) and intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC) tests were used to determine relative reproducibility. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the coefficient of variation (CV) were used to determine absolute reproducibility. The limits of agreement and the bias of the absolute and relative values between days were determined by Bland-Altman plots. All values had a significance level of P < 0.05.
resultsThere were significant differences in AHR (P = 0.03) and NLP (P = 0.01) between the 2 days of testing. The obtained values were r > 0.50 and ICC > 0.66. The SEM had a variation of ±2% and the CV was <10%. Most cases were within the upper and lower limits of Bland-Altman plots, suggesting correlation of the results. The applicability of NLP showed greater robustness (r and ICC > 0.90; SEM < 1%; CV < 3%), indicating that the other variables can be used to predict incremental changes in the physiological condition of swimmers.
conclusionThe Progressive Swim Test for nonexpert swimmers produces comparable results for noncompetitive swimmers with a favorable degree of reproducibility, thus presenting possible applications for researching the physiological performance of nonexpert swimmers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.