Observational studyPloS one2020
Inter- and intra-unit reliability of the COSMED K5: Implications for multicentric and longitudinal testing.
Observational study in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-Field Validity and Inter-Unit Variability of Metabolic Carts During Simulated Exercise.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Article
- Technological and Biological Reliability, and Validity of Five Different CPET Systems During Simulated and Human Exercise.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Article
- Article
- Effects of 16 weeks of pyramidal and polarized training intensity distributions in well-trained endurance runners.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the intra-unit (RELINTRA) and inter-unit reliability (RELINTER) of two structurally identical units of the metabolic analyser K5 (COSMED, Rome, Italy) that allows to utilize either breath-by-breath (BBB) or dynamic mixing chamber (DMC) technology.
methodsIdentical flow- and gas-signals were transmitted to both K5s that always operated simultaneously either in BBB- or DMC-mode. To assess RELINTRA and RELINTER, a metabolic simulator was applied to simulate four graded levels of respiration. RELINTRA and RELINTER were expressed as typical error (TE%) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). To assess also inter-unit differences via natural respiratory signals, 12 male athletes performed one incremental bike step test each in BBB- and DMC-mode. Inter-unit differences within biological testing were expressed as percentages.
resultsIn BBB, TE% of RELINTRA ranged 0.30-0.67 vs. RELINTER 0.16-1.39 and ICC ranged 0.57-1.00 vs. 0.09-1.00. In DMC, TE% of RELINTRA ranged 0.38-0.90 vs. RELINTER 0.03-0.86 and ICC ranged 0.22-1.00 vs. 0.52-1.00. Mean inter-unit differences ranged -2.30-2.20% (Cohen's ds (ds) 0.13-1.52) for BBB- and -0.55-0.61% (ds 0.00-0.65) for DMC-mode, respectively. Inter-unit differences for [Formula: see text] and RER were significant (p < 0.05) at each step.
conclusionTwo structurally identical K5-units demonstrated accurate RELINTRA with TE < 2.0% and similar RELINTER during metabolic simulation. During biological testing, inter-unit differences for [Formula: see text] and RER in BBB-mode were higher than 2% with partially large ES in BBB. Hence, the K5 should be allocated personally wherever possible. Otherwise, e.g. in multicenter studies, a decrease in total reliability needs to be considered especially when the BBB-mode is applied.
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.