ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
International Professional Practice Standards for Clinical Exercise Physiology: Consensus Statement.
Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. 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
Professional standards are used to inform and measure educational programs and individual credentialling of many professions, including those in allied health. The objective of this project was to develop consensus on international professional standards for clinical exercise physiologists. The project employed an e-Delphi approach to build a consensus, being guided by a steering committee and an expert working group. The expert working group reviewed the elements and the steering committee overviewed the results of each round. The expert working group were invited to consider whether elements should be included or excluded and, if to be included, whether these should be core or non-core. The wording of the elements was also checked for accuracy. To be included in the end professional standards and as core, each element required 80% consensus from the expert working group. The e-Delphi process found consensus on four overarching professional standard domains for clinical exercise physiology: professional practice; foundational knowledge; assessment and client management; and case formulation and design and delivery of evidence-based interventions. Consensus was also achieved on individual elements. All bar two of the elements were accepted as core, with these two both being included in the professional standards since they were close to meeting the 80% consensus threshold and because they are reflected in the clinical exercise physiology professional standards where this profession is established. The international professional standards consensus has been achieved with the aim of supporting the development of a standardised approach to international education and practice in clinical exercise physiology.
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.