ArticleClinical physiology and functional imaging2025
Test-retest reliability of cardiopulmonary exercise test-derived metrics in individuals with COPD versus healthy controls.
Article in Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An operational approach for estimating pulmonary diffusing capacity for oxygen in humans.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- What we talk about when we talk about reliability: Comment on 'Intra- and inter-session reliability and repeatability ofExperimental physiology · 2025Article
- Test-retest reliability of cardiopulmonary exercise test-derived metrics in individuals with COPD versus healthy controls.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is usually considered the gold standard for assessing maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O
objectiveTo examine and compare test-retest reliability of CPET derived metrics in individuals with COPD and healthy matched controls.
methods12 individuals with COPD and 12 healthy age- and sex-matched controls were included in this case-control study. Each participant completed two CPET on a bicycle ergometer on two different days. Absolute reliability was reported as smallest real difference (SRD) and relative reliability as coefficient of variance (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). MAIN
resultsSRD for peak oxygen uptake was 451.6 (267.4;1006.4) mL/min and CV was 7.8 (4.7;11.0)% in patients with COPD, whereas SRD was 244.2 (151.4;491.5) mL/min and CV was 3.0 (1.8;4.2)% in healthy controls but with no significant between group difference for SRD. CV values for all CPET derived metrics were found to be below 10%. Apart from peak workload achieved and peak minute ventilation, SRD and CV were significantly higher in COPD than in controls for all other CPET-derived metrics.
conclusionThis study provides test-retest reliability estimates of the most widely used CPET derived metrics in individuals with COPD and healthy matched controls. Test-retest reliability for most metrics derived from CPET were found to be lower in individuals with COPD when compared to healthy controls.
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.