ArticleBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud2022
Validity and reproducibility of a method to estimate cardiorespiratory fitness in college adults
Article in Biomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Epidemiological, mechanistic, and practical bases for assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle status in adults in healthcare settings.European journal of applied physiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiorespiratory fitness is a predictor of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Its assessment in different groups has clinical and public health usefulness. Objective: To evaluate the validity and reproducibility of a no-exercise method [National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) method] to estimate the maximum oxygen consumption (VO2máx) in college adults. Materials and methods: This study included 94 healthy individuals of both sexes (18-55 years). The gold standard was ergospirometry. The validity and reproducibility were evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman method. Results: Among the participants, we found a mean age of 30.54 ± 9.33 years and a VO2máx of 41.29 ± 9.54 ml O2.kg-1.min-1; 48.9 % were women. A mean difference of VO2máx between ergospirometry and that estimated by the NASA method of 3.41 ± 5.64 ml O2.kg-1.min-1 was found. The concordance between the two methods was good, with an ICC of 0.858 (CI95% 0.672-0.926). The percentage of error was 29.70 %. The reproducibility of the two estimates by the NASA method was excellent, with an ICC of 0.986 (CI95% 0.927-0.995). Conclusions: The NASA method is valid and reproducible to estimate VO2máx in college adults. In addition, it is safe and easy to apply. Estimating cardiorespiratory fitness is recommended to improve screening in cardiometabolic risk programs and to implement timely interventions.
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.