Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27601782›Full record

ArticleBiology of sport2016

The effect of trial familiarisation on the validity and reproducibility of a field-based self-paced VO2max test.

W Lim, D Lambrick, A R Mauger, B Woolley, J Faulkner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology of sport, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

5 authors.

W LimMassey University, New Zealand.
D LambrickUniversity of Southampton, United Kingdom.
A R MaugerUniversity of Kent, United Kingdom.
B WoolleyMassey University, New Zealand.
J FaulknerUniversity of Winchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The self-paced maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) test (SPV), which is based on the Borg 6-20 Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale, allows participants to self-regulate their exercise intensity during a closed-loop incremental maximal exercise test. As previous research has assessed the utility of the SPV test within laboratory conditions, the purpose to this study was to assess the effect of trial familiarisation on the validity and reproducibility of a field-based, SPV test. In a cross-sectional study, fifteen men completed one laboratory-based graded exercise test (GXT) and three field-based SPV tests. The GXT was continuous and incremental until the attainment of VO2max. The SPV, which was completed on an outdoor 400m athletic track, consisted of five x 2 min perceptually-regulated (RPE11, 13, 15, 17 and 20) stages of incremental exercise. There were no differences in the VO2max reported between the GXT (63.5±10.1 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) and each SPV test (65.5±8.7, 65.4±7.0 and 66.7±7.7 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1) for SPV1, SPV2 and SPV3, respectively; P>.05). Similar findings were observed when comparing VO2max between SPV tests (P>.05). High intraclass correlation coefficients were reported between the GXT and the SPV, and between each SPV test (≥.80). Although participants ran faster and further during SPV3, a similar pacing strategy was implemented during all tests. This study demonstrated that a field-based SPV is a valid and reliable VO2max test. As trial familiarisation did not moderate VO2max values from the SPV, the application of a single SPV test is an appropriate stand-alone protocol for gauging VO2max.

Indexed as

Field exerciseMaximal oxygen uptakeRatings of Perceived ExertionReliability

Identifiers

PMID27601782
PMCPMC4993143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.