ArticlePloS one2017
Assessment of peak oxygen uptake during handcycling: Test-retest reliability and comparison of a ramp-incremented and perceptually-regulated exercise test.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of different work rate increasing rates on cardiopulmonary exercise testing in arm ergometer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Article
- Toward Predicting Human Performance Outcomes From Wearable Technologies: A Computational Modeling Approach.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Effects of different increments in workload and duration on peak physiological responses during seated upper-body poling.European journal of applied physiology · 2019Article
- Comparison of Peak Oxygen Uptake and Test-Retest Reliability of Physiological Parameters between Closed-End and Incremental Upper-Body Poling Tests.Frontiers in physiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the reliability of a perceptually-regulated maximal exercise test (PRETmax) to measure peak oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) during handcycle exercise and to compare peak responses to those derived from a ramp-incremented protocol (RAMP).
methodsTwenty recreationally active individuals (14 male, 6 female) completed four trials across a 2-week period, using a randomised, counterbalanced design. Participants completed two RAMP protocols (20 W·min-1) in week 1, followed by two PRETmax in week 2, or vice versa. The PRETmax comprised five, 2-min stages clamped at Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) 11, 13, 15, 17 and 20. Participants changed power output (PO) as often as required to maintain target RPE. Gas exchange variables (oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide production, minute ventilation), heart rate (HR) and PO were collected throughout. Differentiated RPE were collected at the end of each stage throughout trials.
resultsFor relative [Formula: see text], coefficient of variation (CV) was equal to 4.1% and 4.8%, with ICC(3,1) of 0.92 and 0.85 for repeated measures from PRETmax and RAMP, respectively. Measurement error was 0.15 L·min-1 and 2.11 ml·kg-1·min-1 in PRETmax and 0.16 L·min-1 and 2.29 ml·kg-1·min-1 during RAMP for determining absolute and relative [Formula: see text], respectively. The difference in [Formula: see text] between PRETmax and RAMP was tending towards statistical significance (26.2 ± 5.1 versus 24.3 ± 4.0 ml·kg-1·min-1, P = 0.055). The 95% LoA were -1.9 ± 4.1 (-9.9 to 6.2) ml·kg-1·min-1.
conclusionThe PRETmax can be used as a reliable test to measure [Formula: see text] during handcycle exercise in recreationally active participants. Whilst PRETmax tended towards significantly greater [Formula: see text] values than RAMP, the difference is smaller than measurement error of determining [Formula: see text] from PRETmax and RAMP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.