ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease2024
Exercise testing in clinical context: Reference ranges for interpreting anaerobic threshold as an outcome for congenital heart disease patients.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Change in the oxygen consumption (VO Methods: Sixty maximal cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) for CHD patients 8-21 years old were independently reviewed by six exercise physiologists and four pediatric cardiologists. For each of the unique rater pairs for the 60 CPETs, the absolute difference in VAT was calculated and displayed on a histogram to demonstrate the distribution of inter-rater variability. This method was repeated for subgroups of test modality (cycle/treadmill), patient factors (diagnoses, exercise capacity), and rater factors (cardiologist/physiologist, years of experience). Results: Rater agreement was good with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.79-0.91 but the distribution of differences was broad. The median difference was 2.7 % predicted peak VO Conclusions: The baseline distribution of reported VAT is relatively broad, varied by units, and was not explained by differences in rater experience or test modality, but varies by patient factors. When evaluating clinical relevance, a change in the VO
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.