ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Reference Values for Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test in Children-How to Report Them Correctly?
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparisons of Respiratory Function and Cardiorespiratory Responses Induced by the Modified Shuttle Walk Test in Children Finswimmers and Age-Matched Sedentary Non-Athletes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Role of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in the Monitoring of Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Athletes - State-of-the-Art Review.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a gold standard to assess cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). CRF varied through the lifespan, increasing in children until early adulthood and then gradually declining. Reference values for CPET are used to check whether the child's CRF falls within the normal range. The differences between directly measured and normative age-adjusted exercise data may suggest pathology and are helpful during the diagnostic process. Deriving reference values for children is particularly challenging. Moreover, many children participate in sports, some at an advanced/elite level, which translates into specific adaptations in CPET. The ATS/ACCP statement on CPET presented a checklist that should be followed when reporting reference values. However, the checklist originally focused on adults. This aggravates the quality of reporting pediatric reference values for CPET, making between-studies comparisons difficult. This review (1) presents a step-by-step protocol to fulfill all requirements from the ATS/ACCP statement in the pediatric population, and (2) summarizes the key challenges in deriving reference values for CPET in children, especially among pediatric athletes. Additional recommendations to enrich the quality of reporting reference values for CPET in pediatric athletes were also discussed.
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.