Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33704698›Full record

ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

Exploring Differences in Cardiorespiratory Fitness Response Rates Across Varying Doses of Exercise Training: A Retrospective Analysis of Eight Randomized Controlled Trials.

Jacob T Bonafiglia, Nicholas Preobrazenski, Hashim Islam, Jeremy J Walsh, Robert Ross, Neil M Johannsen, Corby K Martin, Timothy S Church, Cris A Slentz, Leanna M Ross and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

17 authors.

Jacob T BonafigliaSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Nicholas PreobrazenskiSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Hashim IslamSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Jeremy J WalshDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Robert RossSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Neil M JohannsenSchool of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Corby K MartinPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Timothy S ChurchPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Cris A SlentzDuke Molecular Physiology Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Leanna M RossDuke Molecular Physiology Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
William E KrausDuke Molecular Physiology Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Glen P KennySchool of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Healthy Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Gary S GoldfieldHealthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Denis Prud'hommeSchool of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Healthy Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ronald J SigalSchool of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Healthy Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Conrad P EarnestHealth and Kinesiology, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA.
Brendon J GurdSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. gurdb@queensu.ca.

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 402635
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study tested the hypothesis that greater mean changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), in either the absence or presence of reduced interindividual variability, explain larger CRF response rates following higher doses of exercise training.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed CRF data from eight randomized controlled trials (RCT; n = 1590 participants) that compared at least two doses of exercise training. CRF response rates were calculated as the proportion of participants with individual confidence intervals (CIs) placed around their observed response that lay above 0.5 metabolic equivalents (MET). CIs were calculated using no-exercise control group-derived typical errors and were placed around each individual's observed CRF response (post minus pre-training CRF). CRF response rates, mean changes, and interindividual variability were compared across exercise groups within each RCT.

resultsCompared with lower doses, higher doses of exercise training yielded larger CRF response rates in eight comparisons. For most of these comparisons (7/8), the higher dose of exercise training had a larger mean change in CRF but similar interindividual variability. Exercise groups with similar CRF response rates also had similar mean changes.

conclusionOur findings demonstrate that larger CRF response rates following higher doses of exercise training are attributable to larger mean changes rather than reduced interindividual variability. Following a given dose of exercise training, the proportion of individuals expected to improve their CRF beyond 0.5 METs is unrelated to the heterogeneity of individual responses.

Indexed as

Cardiorespiratory FitnessExerciseHumansPhysical FitnessRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33704698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.