Reliability and Validity of a Self-paced Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test in Post-MI Patients.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Prescribing 6-weeks of running training using parameters from a self-paced maximal oxygen uptake protocol.European journal of applied physiology · 2018
   Trial
2. Age differences in physiological responses to self-paced and incremental [Formula: see text] testing.European journal of applied physiology · 2017
   Trial
3. Assessment of peak oxygen uptake during handcycling: Test-retest reliability and comparison of a ramp-incremented and perceptually-regulated exercise test.PloS one · 2017
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Safety Concerns regarding article: Reliability and Validity of a Self-paced Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test in Post-MI Patients. L. A. Jenkins, A. Mauger, J. Fisher, J. Hopker. Int J Sports Med 2017; 38: 300-306.2017
• Commented on by
  Evaluation of Risk in Research must be Judged on Evidence, not Personal Opinion.2017

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as