ArticleJournal of human kinetics2014
Development and validation of an automated step ergometer.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory ergometers have high costs, becoming inaccessible for most of the population, hence, it is imperative to develop affordable devices making evaluations like cardiorespiratory fitness feasible and easier. The objective of this study was to develop and validate an Automated Step Ergometer (ASE), adjusted according to the height of the subject, for predicting VO2max through a progressive test. The development process was comprised by three steps, the theoretical part, the prototype assembly and further validation. The ASE consists in an elevating platform that makes the step at a higher or lower level as required for testing. The ASE validation was obtained by comparing the values of predicted VO2max (equation) and direct gas analysis on the prototype and on a, treadmill. For the validation process 167 subjects with average age of 31.24 ± 14.38 years, of both genders and different degrees of cardiorespiratory fitness, were randomized and divided by gender and training condition, into untrained (n=106), active (n=24) and trained (n=37) subjects. Each participant performed a progressive test on which the ASE started at the same height (20 cm) for all. Then, according to the subject's height, it varied to a maximum of 45 cm. Time in each stage and rhythm was chosen in accordance with training condition from lowest to highest (60-180 s; 116-160 bpm, respectively). Data was compared with the student's t test and ANOVA; correlations were tested with Pearson's r. The value of α was set at 0.05. No differences were found between the predicted VO2max and the direct gas analysis VO2max, nor between the ASE and treadmill VO2max (p= 0.365) with high correlation between ergometers (r= 0.974). The values for repeatability, reproducibility, and reliability of male and female groups measures were, respectively, 4.08 and 5.02; 0.50 and 1.11; 4.11 and 5.15. The values of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) among measures were all >0.90. It was verified that the ASE prototype was appropriate for a step test, provided valid measures of VO2max and could therefore, be used as an ergometer to measure cardiorespiratory fitness.
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.