Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25729309›Full record

ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2015

Reliability and accuracy of six hand-held blood lactate analysers.

Jacinta M Bonaventura, Ken Sharpe, Emma Knight, Kate L Fuller, Rebecca K Tanner, Christopher J Gore

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
26.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effects ofNutrients · 2026
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jacinta M BonaventuraPhysiology, Australian Institute of Sport , Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Ken SharpeDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne , Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Emma KnightPerformance Research, Australian Institute of Sport , Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Kate L FullerPhysiology, Australian Institute of Sport , Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Rebecca K TannerPhysiology, Australian Institute of Sport , Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Christopher J GorePhysiology, Australian Institute of Sport , Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia ; Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Flinders University , Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Australian Sports Commission · AUFlinders University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reliability and accuracy of five portable blood lactate (BLa) analysers (Lactate Pro, Lactate Pro2, Lactate Scout+, Xpress™, and Edge) and one handheld point-of-care analyser (i-STAT) were compared to a criterion (Radiometer ABL90). Two devices of each brand of analyser were assessed using 22 x 6 mL blood samples taken from five subjects at rest and during exercise who generated lactate ranging ~1-23 mM. Each sample was measured simultaneously ~6 times on each device. Reliability was assessed as the within-sample standard deviation (wsSD) of the six replicates; accuracy as the bias compared with the ABL90; and overall error (the root mean squared error (√MSE)) was calculated as the square root of (wsSD(2) and bias(2)). The √MSE indicated that both the Edge and Xpress had low total error (~0-2 mM) for lactate concentrations <15 mM, whereas the Edge and Lactate Pro2 were the better of the portable analysers for concentrations >15 mM. In all cases, bias (negative) was the major contribution to the √MSE. In conclusion, in a clinical setting where BLa is generally <15 mM the Edge and Xpress devices are relevant, but for athlete testing where peak BLa is important for training prescription the Edge and Lactate Pro2 are preferred. Key pointsThe reliability of five common portable blood lactate analysers were generally <0.5 mM for concentrations in the range of ~1.0-10 mM.For all five portable analysers, the analytical error within a brand was much smaller than the biological variation in blood lactate (BLa).Compared with a criterion blood lactate analyser, there was a tendency for all portable analysers to under-read (i.e. a negative bias), which was particularly evident at the highest concentrations (BLa ~15-23 mM).The practical application of these negative biases would overestimate the ability of the athlete and prescribe a training intensity that would be too high.

Indexed as

analytical performanceBiasprecisionroot mean squared error

Identifiers

PMID25729309
PMCPMC4306774
OpenAlexW2337058114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.