ArticlePloS one2025
Accuracy and repeatability of the COSMED® Q-NRG max mobile metabolic system.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- In-Field Validity and Inter-Unit Variability of Metabolic Carts During Simulated Exercise.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Guided Artificial Nutrition in Critical Illness: Integrating Indirect Calorimetry and BIVA for Metabolic Precision.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Validity of V̇OEuropean journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the accuracy and repeatability of the Q-NRG Max® metabolic system against a VacuMed metabolic simulator using a wide range of metabolic rates.
methodsSixteen metabolic rates (oxygen consumption 0.9-6 L/min), with different combinations of minute ventilation, oxygen consumption, and carbon dioxide production, were measured for 5 minutes, two times by a single Q-NRG Max® unit over the course of one week. Recordings were performed early in the morning, by the same trained technician, in a ventilated laboratory under the same atmospheric conditions. Accuracy was assessed by ordinary least products (OLP) regression analysis, Bland-Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), mean percentage differences, technical errors (TE) and minimum detectable change (MDC) for all three variables. This analysis was performed using 10 metabolic rates (oxygen consumption 0.9-4 L/min) and 16 metabolic rates (oxygen consumption 0.9-6 L/min) to allow comparisons with previous research. Intra-device repeatability was performed by absolute percentage differences between measurements (MAPE), ICC, TE, and MDC for the same variables. Repeatability was investigated using 16 metabolic rates.
resultsHigh agreement and excellent ICCs (>0.998) were observed for all variables when considering both 10 and 16 metabolic rates. The mean percentage difference, TE and MDC were 0.87%-1.01%, 0.67%-1.07%, 1.55%-2.49%, respectively for the first 10 metabolic rates, and -0.39%-0.65%, 0.58%-1.63%, 1.35%-3.81%, respectively for the 16 metabolic rates. The intra-device repeatability results showed an excellent ICCs (=1.000), MAPE < 0.5%, TE < 1%, and MDC ≤ 2%.
conclusionThe Q-NRG Max® is a valid and reliable mobile metabolic system for the measurement of ventilation, oxygen consumption, and carbon dioxide production. Measurements were below the 5% TE and MDC, and 2% MAPE recommended thresholds across a wide range of metabolic rates up to 6 L/min oxygen consumption.
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.