ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2024
Validity of the Ekblom-Bak Cycle Ergometer Test in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the validity of the Ekblom-Bak cycle ergometer test in patients with cardiovascular disease admitted to cardiac rehabilitation.
methodsEstimated peak oxygen consumption from the Ekblom-Bak test was compared with directly measured peak oxygen consumption from a treadmill cardiopulmonary exercise test. Patients completed the cardiopulmonary exercise test first, followed by the Ekblom-Bak test after 24 h rest. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was used to establish the correlation between estimated and measured peak oxygen consumption, and Bland-Altman plots with limits of agreement were used to determine the bias between the 2 tests.
resultsTwenty-six patients were included in the final analysis. The Ekblom-Bak test significantly overestimated peak oxygen consumption. Agreement between estimated and measured peak oxygen consumption was: bias = 4.3 mL/kg/min (limits of agreement: -4.0-12.6 mL/kg/min).
conclusionThe Ekblom-Bak test overestimated peak oxygen consumption to such an extent that it cannot accurately assess cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with cardiovascular disease. Thus, the cardiopulmonary exercise test remains the test of choice.
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.