ArticleSpinal cord2019
Interrater and intrarater reliability of ventilatory thresholds determined in individuals with spinal cord injury.
Article in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exercise and aerobic capacity in individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.PLoS medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Ergogenic effects of spinal cord stimulation on exercise performance following spinal cord injury.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Is Maximal Lactate Accumulation Rate Promising for Improving 5000-m Prediction in Running?International journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- A Reappraisal of Ventilatory Thresholds in Wheelchair Athletes With a Spinal Cord Injury: Do They Really Exist?Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Physiological responses during simulated 16 km recumbent handcycling time trial and determinants of performance in trained handcyclists.European journal of applied physiology · 2020Article
- The influence of protocol design on the identification of ventilatory thresholds and the attainment of peak physiological responses during synchronous arm crank ergometry in able-bodied participants.European journal of applied physiology · 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designCross-sectional.
objectivesIndividualized training regimes are often based on ventilatory thresholds (VTs). The objectives were to study: (1) whether VTs during arm ergometry could be determined in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), (2) the intrarater and interrater reliability of VT determination.
settingUniversity research laboratory.
methodsThirty graded arm crank ergometry exercise tests with 1-min increments of recreationally active individuals (tetraplegia (N = 11), paraplegia (N = 19)) were assessed. Two sports physicians assessed all tests blinded, randomly, in two sessions, for VT1 and VT2, resulting in 240 possible VTs. Power output (PO), heart rate (HR), and oxygen uptake (VO
resultsOf the 240 VTs, 217 (90%) could be determined. Of the 23 undetermined VTs, 2 (9%) were VT1 and 21 (91%) were VT2; 7 (30%) among individuals with paraplegia, and 16 (70%) among individuals with tetraplegia. For the successfully determined VTs, there were no systematic differences between sessions or raters. Intrarater and interrater ICCs for PO, HR, and VO
conclusionsFor VTs that could be determined, relative agreement was high to very high, absolute agreement varied. For some individuals, often with tetraplegia, VT determination was not possible, thus other methods should be considered to prescribe exercise intensity.
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.