ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2018
Investigation of cardiopulmonary exercise testing using a dynamic leg press and comparison with a cycle ergometer.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2018. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Usability evaluation of an interactive leg press training robot for children with neuromuscular impairments.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2022Article
- Relationship between individual ventilatory threshold and maximal fat oxidation (MFO) over different obesity classes in women.PloS one · 2019Article
- Technical feasibility of constant-load and high-intensity interval training for cardiopulmonary conditioning using a re-engineered dynamic leg press.BMC biomedical engineering · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeg-press machines are widely employed for musculoskeletal conditioning of the lower-limbs and they provide cardiovascular benefits for resistance training in cardiac patients. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of a dynamic leg press (DLP) for incremental cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and to compare the results with those obtained using a cycle ergometer (CE).
methodsTwelve healthy participants aged 27±4 years (mean ± standard deviation) performed incremental cardiopulmonary exercise tests on a DLP and on a CE. To facilitate CPET, the DLP was augmented with force and angle sensors, a work rate estimation algorithm, and a visual feedback system. Gas exchange variables and heart rate were recorded breath-by-breath using a cardiopulmonary monitoring system.
resultsPeak oxygen uptake and peak heart rate were significantly lower for the DLP than for the CE: peak oxygen uptake was 3.2±0.5 vs. 4.1±0.5 L/min (DLP vs. CE,
conclusionsThe dynamic leg press was found to be feasible for CPET: the approach was technically implementable and all peak and sub-maximal cardiopulmonary parameters were able to be identified. The lower outcome values observed with the DLP can be attributed to a peripheral factor, namely the earlier onset of muscular fatigue.
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.