ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
How consistent is the determination of the anaerobic threshold among members of the same cardiac rehabilitation team?
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Consistency in the anaerobic threshold (AT) determination is essential for cardiac rehabilitation teams comprising multiple professionals who conduct cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs) and interpret their results. The effect of years of experience on interpreting CPET results, including the AT, has been examined. However, consistency in the AT determination among members of the same institution with experience beyond the training period has not been reported. Methods: We evaluated consistency in the AT determination among four members at a cardiovascular hospital (three full-time physical therapists and one part-time consultant physician) with 4 to 30 years of experience with CPETs. Another full-time physical therapist acted as the controller and did not participate in the AT reading. This retrospective study used 260 blinded and randomized CPET data files from 130 patients (130 data pairs comprising inpatient and outpatient data). All observers determined the AT twice using the modified V-slope method. Results: The mean AT values showed significant interobserver differences (p<0.001) driven by a slightly but significantly lower value determined by the consultant physician. No significant differences in the values determined by the three full-time staff members were observed. Despite interobserver differences during inpatient and outpatient phases, the longitudinal change in the AT did not differ significantly (p=0.58). The intrarater reliability of four observers was good [intraclass correlation coefficient (1,1) = 0.87-0.94], with limits of agreement of 103.6 to 185.0 mL/min. The inter-rater reliability was also good [intraclass coefficient (2,1) = 0.87], with limits of agreement of observer pairs of 139.2 to 220.5 mL/min. Reliability was not associated with years of experience. Conclusions: Good consistency in the AT determination is achievable in a clinical setting. Adherence to a single standardized method across the team likely facilitates this consistency and provides a reliable objective measure for monitoring exercise tolerance.
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.