Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33792764›Full record

ArticleSports medicine - open2021

Modified Talk Test: a Randomized Cross-over Trial Investigating the Comparative Utility of Two "Talk Tests" for Determining Aerobic Training Zones in Overweight and Obese Patients.

Ignacio Orizola-Cáceres, Hugo Cerda-Kohler, Carlos Burgos-Jara, Roberto Meneses-Valdes, Rafael Gutierrez-Pino, Carlos Sepúlveda

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine - open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ignacio Orizola-CáceresUnidad de Fisiología Integrativa, Laboratorio de Ciencias del Ejercicio, Clínica MEDS, Santiago, Chile.
Hugo Cerda-KohlerUnidad de Fisiología Integrativa, Laboratorio de Ciencias del Ejercicio, Clínica MEDS, Santiago, Chile.
Carlos Burgos-JaraUnidad de Fisiología Integrativa, Laboratorio de Ciencias del Ejercicio, Clínica MEDS, Santiago, Chile.
Roberto Meneses-ValdesUnidad de Fisiología Integrativa, Laboratorio de Ciencias del Ejercicio, Clínica MEDS, Santiago, Chile.
Rafael Gutierrez-PinoUnidad de Fisiología Integrativa, Laboratorio de Ciencias del Ejercicio, Clínica MEDS, Santiago, Chile.
Carlos SepúlvedaUnidad de Fisiología Integrativa, Laboratorio de Ciencias del Ejercicio, Clínica MEDS, Santiago, Chile. csepulvedag@ug.uchile.cl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7708-9002
Clínica MEDS (Chile) · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo validate the traditional talk test (TTT) and an alternative talk test (ATT; using a visual analog scale) in overweight/obese (OW-OB) patients and to establish its accuracy in determining the aerobic training zones.

methodsWe recruited 19 subjects aged 34.9 ± 6.7 years, diagnosed with overweight/obesity (BMI 31.8 ± 5.7). Every subject underwent incremental cycloergometric tests for maximal oxygen consumption, and TTT in a randomized order. At the end of each stage during the TTT, each subject read out loud a 40 words text and then had to identify the comfort to talk in two modalities: TTT which consisted in answering "Yes," "I don't know," or "No" to the question Was talking comfortable?, or ATT through a 1 to 10 numeric perception scale (visual analog scale (VAS)). The magnitude of differences was interpreted in comparison to the smallest worthwhile change and was used to determine agreement.

resultsThere was an agreement between the power output at the VAS 2-3 of ATT and the power output at the ventilatory threshold 1 (VT1) (very likely equivalent; mean difference - 1.3 W, 90% confidence limit (CL) (- 8.2; 5.6), percent chances for higher/similar/lower values of 0.7/99.1/0.2%). Also, there was an agreement between the power output at the VAS 6-7 of ATT and the power output at the ventilatory threshold 2 (VT2) (very likely equivalent; mean difference 11.1 W, 90% CL (2.8; 19.2), percent chances for higher/similar/lower values of 0.0/97.6/2.4%).

conclusionsATT is a tool to determine exercise intensity and to establish aerobic training zones for exercise prescription in OW-OB patients.

Indexed as

Aerobic training zonesExercise prescriptionIntensityTalk test

Identifiers

PMID33792764
PMCPMC8017038
OpenAlexW3115291344

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.