Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33596256›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Is a verification phase useful for confirming maximal oxygen uptake in apparently healthy adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Victor A B Costa, Adrian W Midgley, Sean Carroll, Todd A Astorino, Tainah de Paula, Paulo Farinatti, Felipe A Cunha

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Lessons from history forFrontiers in physiology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Analysis of Individual V˙OJournal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Victor A B CostaGraduate Program in Exercise Science and Sports, University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Adrian W MidgleyDepartment of Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, England.
Sean CarrollDepartment of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Hull, Hull, England.
Todd A AstorinoDepartment of Kinesiology, California State University, San Marcos, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0492-0173
Tainah de PaulaDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Clinics of Hypertension and Associated Metabolic Diseases, University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Paulo FarinattiGraduate Program in Exercise Science and Sports, University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Felipe A CunhaGraduate Program in Exercise Science and Sports, University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8912-5656
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · BRCalifornia State University, San Marcos · USEdge Hill University · GBUniversity of Hull · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 'verification phase' has emerged as a supplementary procedure to traditional maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) criteria to confirm that the highest possible VO2 has been attained during a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET).

objectiveTo compare the highest VO2 responses observed in different verification phase procedures with their preceding CPET for confirmation that VO2max was likely attained.

methodsMEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane (accessed through Wiley) were searched for relevant studies that involved apparently healthy adults, VO2max determination by indirect calorimetry, and a CPET on a cycle ergometer or treadmill that incorporated an appended verification phase. RevMan 5.3 software was used to analyze the pooled effect of the CPET and verification phase on the highest mean VO2. Meta-analysis effect size calculations incorporated random-effects assumptions due to the diversity of experimental protocols employed. I2 was calculated to determine the heterogeneity of VO2 responses, and a funnel plot was used to check the risk of bias, within the mean VO2 responses from the primary studies. Subgroup analyses were used to test the moderator effects of sex, cardiorespiratory fitness, exercise modality, CPET protocol, and verification phase protocol.

resultsEighty studies were included in the systematic review (total sample of 1,680 participants; 473 women; age 19-68 yr.; VO2max 3.3 ± 1.4 L/min or 46.9 ± 12.1 mL·kg-1·min-1). The highest mean VO2 values attained in the CPET and verification phase were similar in the 54 studies that were meta-analyzed (mean difference = 0.03 [95% CI = -0.01 to 0.06] L/min, P = 0.15). Furthermore, the difference between the CPET and verification phase was not affected by any of the potential moderators such as verification phase intensity (P = 0.11), type of recovery utilized (P = 0.36), VO2max verification criterion adoption (P = 0.29), same or alternate day verification procedure (P = 0.21), verification-phase duration (P = 0.35), or even according to sex, cardiorespiratory fitness level, exercise modality, and CPET protocol (P = 0.18 to P = 0.71). The funnel plot indicated that there was no significant publication bias.

conclusionsThe verification phase seems a robust procedure to confirm that the highest possible VO2 has been attained during a ramp or continuous step-incremented CPET. However, given the high concordance between the highest mean VO2 achieved in the CPET and verification phase, findings from the current study would question its necessity in all testing circumstances. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42019123540.

Indexed as

AdultExerciseExercise TestHumansMiddle AgedOxygen ConsumptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33596256
PMCPMC7888616
OpenAlexW3131923715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.