Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28032253›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2017

Effect of cadence on locomotor-respiratory coupling during upper-body exercise.

Nicholas B Tiller, Mike J Price, Ian G Campbell, Lee M Romer

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Physiological Implication of Slope Gradient during Incremental Running Test.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas B TillerAcademy of Sport and Physical Activity, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK. n.tiller@shu.ac.uk.
Mike J PriceFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.
Ian G CampbellSchool of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Lee M RomerDivision of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Brunel University London, London, UK.
Brunel University of London · GBCoventry University · GBSheffield Hallam University · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAsynchronous arm-cranking performed at high cadences elicits greater cardiorespiratory responses compared to low cadences. This has been attributed to increased postural demand and locomotor-respiratory coupling (LRC), and yet, this has not been empirically tested. This study aimed to assess the effects of cadence on cardiorespiratory responses and LRC during upper-body exercise.

methodsEight recreationally-active men performed arm-cranking exercise at moderate and severe intensities that were separated by 10 min of rest. At each intensity, participants exercised for 4 min at each of three cadences (50, 70, and 90 rev min

resultsThe prevalence of LRC during moderate exercise was highest at 70 vs. 50 rev min

conclusionParticipants engage in LRC to a greater extent at moderate-high cadences which, in turn, increase respiratory airflow. Cadence rate should be carefully considered when designing aerobic training programmes involving the upper-limbs.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultArmBicyclingExerciseHumansLocomotionMaleOxygen ConsumptionPhysical EndurancePhysical ExertionPulmonary VentilationYoung AdultArm-crankingCardiorespiratoryDiaphragmEntrainmentRespiratory muscle

Identifiers

PMID28032253
PMCPMC5313582
OpenAlexW2566003923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.