ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2016
Appropriateness of the metabolic equivalent (MET) as an estimate of exercise intensity for post-myocardial infarction patients.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Clinical Effectiveness of Cardiac Rehabilitation among Patients of Very Low Socioeconomic Status Living in Colombia.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- Combination of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted contrast agent for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
- Metabolic equivalents fail to indicate metabolic load in post-myocardial infarction patients during the modified Bruce treadmill walking test.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo explore: (1) whether during exercise metabolic equivalents (METs) appropriately indicate the intensity and/or metabolic cost for post-myocardial infarction (MI) males and (2) whether post-exercise VO
methods15 male phase-IV post-MIs (64.4±6.5 years) and 16 apparently healthy males (63.0±6.4 years) participated. Participants performed a graded cycle ergometer test (CET) of 50, 75 and 100 W, followed by 10 min active recovery (at 50 W) and 22 min seated recovery. Participants' heart rate (HR, bpm), expired air parameters and ratings of perceived exertion (exercise only) were measured.
resultsGeneral linear model analysis showed throughout significantly lower HR values in post-MI participants that were related to β-blocker medication (
conclusionSince METs take no consideration of any anaerobic component, they failed to reflect the significantly greater anaerobic contribution during exercise per MET for phase-IV post-MI patients. Given the anaerobic component will be greater for those with more severe forms of cardiac disease, current METs should be used with caution when determining exercise intensity in any patient with cardiac disease.
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.