ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2002
Intra- and inter-observer reliability in selection of the heart rate deflection point during incremental exercise: comparison to a computer-generated deflection point.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2002. 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.
- Cardiorespiratory responses to stationary running in water and on land.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2013Article
- Respiratory Rate is a Valid and Reliable Marker for the Anaerobic Threshold: Implications for Measuring Change in Fitness.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was designed to 1) determine the relative frequency of occurrence of a heart rate deflection point (HRDP), when compared to a linear relationship, during progressive exercise, 2) measure the reproducibility of a visual assessment of a heart rate deflection point (HRDP), both within and between observers 3) compare visual and computer-assessed deflection points. Subjects consisted of 73 competitive male cyclists with mean age of 31.4 ± 6.3 years, mean height 178.3 ± 4.8 cm. and weight 74.0 ± 4.4 kg. Tests were conducted on an electrically-braked cycle ergometer beginning at 25 watts and progressing 25 watts per minute to fatigue. Heart Rates were recorded the last 10 seconds of each stage and at fatigue. Scatter plots of heart rate versus watts were computer-generated and given to 3 observers on two different occasions. A computer program was developed to assess if data points were best represented by a single line or two lines. The HRDP represented the intersection of the two lines. Results of this study showed that 1) computer-assessed HRDP showed that 44 of 73 subjects (60.3%) had scatter plots best represented by a straight line with no HRDP 2)in those subjects having HRDP, all 3 observers showed significant differences(p = 0.048, p = 0.007, p = 0.001) in reproducibility of their HRDP selection. Differences in HRDP selection were significant for two of the three comparisons between observers (p = 0.002, p = 0.305, p = 0.0003) Computer-generated HRDP was significantly different than visual HRDP for 2 of 3 observers (p = 0.0016, p = 0.513, p = 0.0001). It is concluded that 1) HRDP occurs in a minority of subjects 2) significant differences exist, both within and between observers, in selection of HRDP and 3) differences in agreement between visual and computer-generated HRDP would indicate that, when HRDP exists, it should be computer-assessed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24748842PMC3979002What 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.