Trial reportPloS one2021
Verification-phase tests show low reliability and add little value in determining
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individual cardiovascular responsiveness to work-matched exercise within the moderate- and severe-intensity domains.European journal of applied physiology · 2021Trial
- Submaximal Verification Test to Exhaustion Confirms Maximal Oxygen Uptake: Roles of Anaerobic Performance and Respiratory Muscle Strength.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- A verification phase adds little value to the determination of maximum oxygen uptake in well-trained adults.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Article
- Comparison of constant load exercise intensity for verification of maximal oxygen uptake following a graded exercise test in older adults.Physiological reports · 2021Article
- Responders and non-responders to aerobic exercise training: beyond the evaluation ofPhysiological reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the robustness of a
methodsEighteen adults performed six cardiorespiratory fitness tests at six different times of the day (diurnal variation) as well as a seventh test at the same time the sixth test took place (day-to-day variation). A verification-phase was performed immediately after each test, with a stepwise increase in intensity to 50%, 70%, and 105% of the peak power output.
resultsParticipants mean
conclusionCompared to
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.