ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2015
Prediction of peak oxygen uptake from ratings of perceived exertion during a sub-maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new maximal bicycle test using a prediction algorithm developed from four large COPD studies.European clinical respiratory journal · 2020Article
- Overall and differentiated sensory responses to cardiopulmonary exercise test in patients with cystic fibrosis: kinetics and ability to predict peak oxygen uptake.European journal of applied physiology · 2018Article
- The Predictability of Peak Oxygen Consumption Using Submaximal Ratings of Perceived Exertion in Adolescents.International journal of exercise science · 2018Article
- Cross-validation of Peak Oxygen Consumption Prediction Models From OMNI Perceived Exertion.International journal of sports medicine · 2016Article
- Prediction of peak oxygen uptake in children using submaximal ratings of perceived exertion during treadmill exercise.European journal of applied physiology · 2016Article
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe assessed the validity of predicting peak oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2 peak) from the relationship between oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2) and overall ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) obtained during the initial stages of a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET).
methodFifteen healthy participants and 18 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) performed a maximal CPET, during which [Formula: see text]O2 and RPE were measured until RPE15.
resultsIndividual regressions between [Formula: see text]O2 and RPE ≤ 15 were extrapolated to RPE19 to predict [Formula: see text]O2 peak. Mean actual and predicted [Formula: see text]O2 peak were not significantly different in healthy women (18.9 ± 4.1 vs. 20.4 ± 4.5 mL kg(-1) min(-1), respectively) and men (28.9 ± 7.8 vs. 29.7 ± 8.5 mL kg(-1) min(-1), respectively), or in women (15.2 ± 4.7 vs. 15.8 ± 5.0 mL kg(-1) min(-1), respectively) and men (16.2 ± 4.4 vs. 17.4 ± 5.4 mL kg(-1) min(-1), respectively) with COPD (P = 0.067). Moreover, actual and predicted [Formula: see text]O2 peak were highly correlated in healthy participants and COPD patients (r ≥ 0.89; P < 0.001). The bias and 95 % limits of agreement were -1.0 ± 4.0 and -1.0 ± 4.6 mL kg(-1) min(-1) for healthy and COPD participants, respectively.
conclusion[Formula: see text]O2 peak can be predicted with acceptable accuracy in healthy participants and patients with COPD from the individual relationship between [Formula: see text]O2 and RPE ≤ 15.
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.