Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35324999›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Comparison of parameters derived from a three-minute all-out test with classical benchmarks for running exercise.

Filipe A B Sousa, Fúlvia B Manchado-Gobatto, Natália A Rodrigues, Claudio A Gobatto

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Filipe A B SousaLaboratory of Applied Sport Physiology, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8252-725X
Fúlvia B Manchado-GobattoLaboratory of Applied Sport Physiology, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Natália A RodriguesLaboratory of Applied Sport Physiology, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Claudio A GobattoLaboratory of Applied Sport Physiology, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to compare four constructs from the three-minute all-out test (AO3)-end power (EP), the area above EP (WEP), maximum power (Pmax), and attained [Formula: see text]-to those derived from the classical CP model in tethered running. Seventeen male recreational runners underwent two experiments to test for reliability and agreement of AO3 parameters with those obtained from the classical CP model (Wꞌ and CP), a graded exercise test ([Formula: see text]) and a 30-second all-out test (AO30s; Pmax); all performed on a non-motorized treadmill (NMT). Significance levels were set at p<0.05. There were no significant differences between test-retest for Pmax (p = 0.51), WEP (p = 0.39), and EP (p = 0.64), showing generally close to zero bias. Further, retest ICC were high for Pmax and EP (ICC > 0.86) but moderate for WEP (ICC = 0.69). Pmax showed no difference between AO3 and AO30s (p = 0.18; CV% = 9.5%). EP and WEP disagreed largely with their classical critical power model counterparts (p = 0.05; CV%>32.7% and p = 0.23; CV%>39.7%, respectively), showing greater error than their test-retest reliability. [Formula: see text] from AO3 was not different (p = 0.13) and well related (CV% = 8.4; ICC = 0.87) to the incremental test [Formula: see text]. Under the studied conditions, the agreement of EP and WEP to CP and Wꞌ was not strong enough to assure their use interchangeably. Pmax and [Formula: see text] were closer to their criterion parameters.

Indexed as

Oxygen ConsumptionRunningBenchmarkingExercise TestHumansMaleReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID35324999
PMCPMC8947413

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.