ArticleThoracic cancer2026
Validity and Feasibility of the Constant-Load Cycle Endurance Test in Lung Cancer Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated the validity of the constant-load cycle endurance test (CET), performed at 75% of maximal power output, in patients with lung cancer undergoing radiation therapy. Its feasibility, responsiveness to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), and clinical applicability were also examined.
methodsThirty-three patients participated in a 4-week PR program during radiation therapy. CET time was compared with the 6-min walk test (6MWT) to assess concurrent validity. Patients were stratified by 6MWT distance (≥ 450 m = active; < 450 m = inactive). CET, 6MWT, knee extensor strength, and handgrip strength were measured at baseline and post-PR. Adverse events were monitored.
resultsCET time showed a moderate correlation with 6MWT distance (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). The correlation was stronger in the active subgroup (r = 0.61, p < 0.001) but not significant in the inactive subgroup (r = 0.09, p = 0.63). After PR, significant improvements were observed in CET, knee extensor (left) strength (p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis indicated that inactive patients primarily improved in 6MWT, whereas active patients showed greater gains in CET. No adverse events occurred during testing or PR.
conclusionsCET demonstrated moderate validity with the 6MWT and was responsive to PR, particularly in patients with higher functional capacity. CET appears feasible, safe, and complementary to walk tests, potentially capturing improvements masked by ceiling effects. Larger studies are needed to confirm its role as a standard outcome measure in PR for lung cancer.
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.