ArticlePhysiological reports2020
An analysis of 2-day cardiopulmonary exercise testing to assess unexplained fatigue.
Article in Physiological reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Ramp Protocol with Increasing Incline and Additional Weight for Special Operation Forces Provides a Valid Assessment of V.O2max.Military medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of symptoms in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a comparative study of existing scales.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Cardiopulmonary and metabolic responses during a 2-day CPET in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: translating reduced oxygen consumption to impairment status to treatment considerations.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Mixed methods system for the assessment of post-exertional malaise in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: an exploratory study.BMJ neurology open · 2024Article
- Recovery from Exercise in Persons with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS).Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Article
- An analysis of 2-day cardiopulmonary exercise testing to assess unexplained fatigue.Physiological reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Two consecutive maximal cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs) performed 24 hr apart (2-day CPET protocol) are increasingly used to evaluate post-exertional malaise (PEM) and related disability among individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). This protocol may extend to other fatiguing illnesses with similar characteristics to ME/CFS; however, 2-day CPET protocol reliability and minimum change required to be considered clinically meaningful (i.e., exceeding the standard error of the measure) are not well characterized. To address this gap, we evaluated the 2-day CPET protocol in Gulf War Illness (GWI) by quantifying repeatability of seven CPET parameters, establishing their thresholds of clinically significant change, and determining whether changes differed between veterans with GWI and controls. Excluding those not attaining peak effort criteria (n = 15), we calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), the smallest real difference (SRD%), and repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT) and peak exercise in 15 veterans with GWI and eight controls. ICC values at peak ranged from moderate to excellent for veterans with GWI (mean [range]; 0.84 [0.65 - 0.92]) and were reduced at the VAT (0.68 [0.37 - 0.78]). Across CPET variables, the SRD% at peak exercise for veterans with GWI (18.8 [8.8 - 28.8]) was generally lower than at the VAT (28.1 [9.5 - 34.8]). RM-ANOVAs did not detect any significant group-by-time interactions (all p > .05). The methods and findings reported here provide a framework for evaluating 2-day CPET reliability, and reinforce the importance of carefully considering measurement error in the population of interest when interpreting findings.
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.