Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26790419›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2016

Submaximal, Perceptually Regulated Exercise Testing Predicts Maximal Oxygen Uptake: A Meta-Analysis Study.

Jeremy Coquart, Montassar Tabben, Abdulaziz Farooq, Claire Tourny, Roger Eston

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Perceived Exertion: Revisiting the History and Updating the Neurophysiology and the Practical Applications.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jeremy CoquartFaculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, University of Rouen, CETAPS, Boulevard Siegfried, 76821, Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France. jeremy.coquart@yahoo.com.
Montassar TabbenFaculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, University of Rouen, CETAPS, Boulevard Siegfried, 76821, Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France.
Abdulaziz FarooqAspetar-Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar.
Claire TournyFaculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, University of Rouen, CETAPS, Boulevard Siegfried, 76821, Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France.
Roger EstonAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Physical Activity, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Université de Rouen Normandie · FRQatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital · QAUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, several authors have proposed the use of a submaximal 'perceptually regulated exercise test' (PRET) to predict maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]). The PRET involves asking the individual to self-regulate a series of short bouts of exercise corresponding to pre-set ratings of perceived exertion (RPE). The individual linear relationship between RPE and oxygen uptake (RPE:[Formula: see text]) is then extrapolated to the [Formula: see text], which corresponds to the theoretical maximal RPE (RPE20). Studies suggest that prediction accuracy from this method may be better improved during a second PRET. Similarly, some authors have recommended an extrapolation to RPE19 rather than RPE20.

objectivesThe purpose of the meta-analysis was to examine the validity of the method of predicting [Formula: see text] from the RPE:[Formula: see text] during a PRET, and to determine the level of agreement and accuracy of predicting [Formula: see text] from an initial PRET and retest using RPE19 and RPE20. DATA SOURCES: From a systematic search of the literature, 512 research articles were identified. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The eligible manuscripts were those which used the relationship between the RPE≤15 and [Formula: see text], and used only the Borg's RPE scale. PARTICIPANTS AND

interventionsTen studies (n = 274 individuals) were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsFor each study, actual and predicted [Formula: see text] from four subgroup outcomes (RPE19 in the initial test, RPE19 in the retest, RPE20 in the initial test, RPE20 in the retest) were identified, and then compared. The magnitude of the difference regardless of subgroup outcomes was examined to determine if it is better to predict [Formula: see text] from extrapolation to RPE19 or RPE20. The magnitude of differences was examined for the best PRET (test vs retest).

resultsThe results revealed that [Formula: see text] may be predicted from RPE:[Formula: see text] during PRET in different populations and in various PRET modalities, regardless of the subgroup outcomes. To obtain greater accuracy of predictions, extrapolation to RPE20 during a retest may be recommended. LIMITATIONS: The included studies reported poor selection bias and data collection methods. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY

findingsThe [Formula: see text] may be predicted from RPE:[Formula: see text] during PRET, especially when [Formula: see text] is extrapolated to RPE20 during a second PRET.

Indexed as

Physical ExertionExercise TestHumansOxygen ConsumptionPerceptionReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26790419
OpenAlexW2283320655

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.