Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36582343›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2022

Primum non nocere; It's time to consider altitude training as the medical intervention it actually is!

Jeroen Van Cutsem, Nathalie Pattyn

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeroen Van CutsemVital Signs and Performance Monitoring (VIPER) Research Unit, Royal Military Academy, Brussels, Belgium.
Nathalie PattynVital Signs and Performance Monitoring (VIPER) Research Unit, Royal Military Academy, Brussels, Belgium.
Royal Military Academy · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sleep is one of the most important aspects of recovery, and is known to be severely affected by hypoxia. The present position paper focuses on sleep as a strong moderator of the altitude training-response. Indeed, the response to altitude training is highly variable, it is not a fixed and classifiable trait, rather it is a state that is determined by multiple factors (e.g., iron status, altitude dose, pre-intervention hemoglobin mass, training load, and recovery). We present an overview of evidence showing that sleep, and more specifically the prolonged negative impact of altitude on the nocturnal breathing pattern, affecting mainly deep sleep and thus the core of physiological recovery during sleep, could play an important role in intra- and interindividual variability in the altitude training-associated responses in professional and recreational athletes. We conclude our paper with a set of suggested recommendations to customize the application of altitude training to the specific needs and vulnerabilities of each athlete (i.e., primum non nocere). Several factors have been identified (e.g., sex, polymorphisms in the TASK2/KCNK5, NOTCH4 and CAT genes and pre-term birth) to predict individual vulnerabilities to hypoxia-related sleep-disordered breathing. Currently, polysomnography should be the first choice to evaluate an individual's predisposition to a decrease in deep sleep related to hypoxia. Further interventions, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, might alleviate the effects of nocturnal hypoxia in those athletes that show most vulnerable.

Indexed as

endurancegenetic polymorphismshypoxiaperformanceperiodic breathingphysical activitysleepteam-sport

Identifiers

PMID36582343
PMCPMC9792969
OpenAlexW4312138158

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.